My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Implementation of PRRIP Unresolved Issues
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
1001-2000
>
Implementation of PRRIP Unresolved Issues
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 4:36:42 PM
Creation date
6/1/2009 9:21:35 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8461.400
Description
SPWRAP
State
CO
Basin
South Platte
Water Division
1
Date
2/6/2006
Author
State of Colorado and SPWRAP
Title
Implementation of PRRIP Unresolved Issues
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Contract/Agreement
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
b. Colorado's "future depletions," and any retiming of river flows necessitated <br />by them, will depend on population growth and changed patterns of water <br />use. Colorado will be required to submit documentation regarding the <br />amount of water re-regulated for program purposes, and requires <br />collection and reporting of data pertaining to population growth, water <br />sources being relied upon for supplying new growth, the acreage in <br />irrigated agriculture and other matters. This data will be developed from <br />records maintained by the SEO, the State Demography Office, SPWRAP <br />and its members [??], and may require coordination with or cooperation <br />from the DoW, the CWCB, and perhaps others. <br />5. Certifications to FWS <br />a. Decision needed: Will membership in SPWRAP (and payment of <br />assessments in accordance with its articles) be required if a water project <br />proponent in the South Platte basin seeks ESA compliance through <br />coverage under the Program? Are there other requirements that water <br />users should have to meet to secure the benefits of the Program? <br />b. If the State is funding all of Colorado's participation in the PRRIP, there <br />would be no need to insist on SPWRAP membership, and probably no <br />need to make any certification to FWS. If Colorado's participation is going <br />to be funded by water users, in whole or in part, everyone who benefits <br />ought to pay an appropriate share. The water users involved in SPWRAP <br />spent considerable time developing an assessment structure that would <br />be fair. <br />i Municipal water providers will be assessed at the rate of six units per <br />single family equivalent tap. <br />ii Agricultural users will be assessed at the rate of one unit for each ten <br />acres irrigated by that member's ditch system. <br />iii Industrial users (who divert their own water supply) will be assessed at <br />the rate of six units per acre foot of diversion. <br />iv Water conservancy districts will be assessed at the rate of one unit per <br />100 irrigated acres or one unit per 200 irrigated acres within the <br />district, depending on whether or not the district causes depletions <br />covered by PRRIP. <br />v SPWRAP estimated that an annual assessment of 35¢ to 40¢ per unit <br />would fund Colorado's obligations, depending on the level of <br />participation. SPWRAP would require a member joining some years <br />Unres-Issues 2-6-06
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.