State/SPWRAP for Implementation of PRRIP Unresolved Issues

Home Browse Search

would not be able to fund the Colorado portion of the program, and that the only option was direct funding by water users. h. SPWRAP is a non - profit corporation created under Colorado law to raise the money necessary and to meet the other legal obligations that will be undertaken by Colorado when it signs the PRRIP Agreement. L With the passage of Referendum C and signs of an improving economy and budgetary outlook, the funding picture has become less unclear — Colorado my have the ability to pay program costs. j. The funding issue ties into several other questions about the roles and responsibilities of the State and SPWRAP in implementing the PRRIP. Initial drafts of agreements between SPWRAP & State to define those roles and responsibilities have been drafted, and those drafts have highlighted the need for policy -level decisions before drafting can go forward. 2. Source of Funding a. Decision needed: How can funding obligations be allocated between the State and SPWRAP so that it: i Complies with state law ii Ensures Program obligations will timely be met iii Is fair iv Is practical and not counter - productive for SPWRAP b. Expected need: i $24M monetary contribution to PRRIP over 13 year "First Increment." ii Additional money required to accomplish required re- regulation of South Platte River flows in northeaster Colorado. c. With the anticipated recapitalization of the Species Conservation Trust Fund, the State may be able to set aside $5M this year, presumably more over time. i Total amount and timing of contribution by the State is uncertain. ii The State apparently can make no binding commitment to fund any amount beyond the current year. iii Existence of an alternative (SPWRAP) may reduce probability of funding. d. Water users are willing to step up to the plate, and propose sharing costs 1/3 SPWRAP, 2/3 State, but: 2 Unres- Issues 2 -6 -06