Laserfiche WebLink
The RPW, which has been working for more than a year, will start the public process of <br />analyzing Hermosa Creek with a kick -off meeting on April 8 in Durango. Steve said the <br />RPW anticipates having 10 or 12 meetings about Hermosa Creek. Everyone who comes <br />to the table is considered a stakeholder. <br />The RPW is seeking a community -based consensus on managing the different streams <br />under review and will proceed in three steps: <br />First, the RPW Steering Committee has reviewed each of the river segments and initially <br />identified the values to provide background for the public meetings. <br />Second, the RPW will discuss both values important in managing the streams, such as <br />national, social and economic values, and current protections in place, such as the <br />Colorado Water Conservation Board's instream -flow water rights. <br />Third, the RPW will discuss options to protect the important river values identified by the <br />RPW, including a no- action alternative. <br />The RPW may not reach consensus, but it will have identified important issues and the <br />position of different community sectors in a final report. It is hoped that the information <br />will be useful to the SJPLC, members of Colorado's Congressional delegation, and <br />others. <br />From the audience, Chuck Wanner of the San Juan Citizens Alliance, said the RPW, <br />at worst, will provide an open community discussion about the values of each stream <br />segment and options for protecting them. If the group does reach consensus for further <br />protection of any stream segments, practical steps could be taken to protect those streams. <br />Steve said the RPW is concerned about protecting existing water rights and providing the <br />opportunity for future water development, but also wants to address the river values that <br />need protection. The RPW wants to find win -win solutions. <br />Bruce Whitehead of the SWCD said no options are off the RPW table for any stream <br />segments, including WSR designation and a "no- action alternative." <br />Steve said the RPW should have a Web site running in late March that will provide <br />information sheets on the stream segments, maps, and other information. <br />COMMENTS ON DRAFT PLAN REVISION <br />Water Roundtable members expressed concerns about language in the Draft Plan <br />Revision as follows. <br />Janice said that Appendix D concerning potential WSR designations often indicate that <br />such a designation would be the best way to protect a stream segment, but provides little <br />detail on the rationale for such a statement. <br />4 <br />