Laserfiche WebLink
By the May or Board meeting, the Board should have <br /> some additional materials for review concerning the implemen- <br /> tation plans and procedures. Discussion was deferred until that <br /> time. <br /> c. Reauthorization of Endangered Species Act (Added item) <br /> (Deferred until after lunch) <br /> Agenda Item 16 - Request for Feasibility Study <br /> a. Grand Mesa Water Conservancy District (Appendix D attached) <br /> In reporting on this item, Mr. McDonald recalled that the <br /> Grand Mesa Water Conservancy District first applied to the Board <br /> for a Grand Mesa project feasibility study in 1981. A contract <br /> was approved by the Board making $16 ,700 (50% of the total study <br /> costs) available towards the study, the balance coming from the <br /> entity's own moneys and from moneys made available to it by the <br /> Colorado Department of Local Affairs (impact assistance funding) . <br /> This study was completed in October, 1983 . <br /> The District has now applied for further funding to address <br /> certain problems identified in the initial study. Also, there <br /> have been new developments which substantially change the potential <br /> water supply available for a project. <br /> Staff member, Nick Ioannides , briefed the Board on <br /> objectives of the study, which are summarized in the District's <br /> Project Study "Request for Proposals" (attached to Appendix D) . <br /> Mr. Herschel Burgess , President of the District, addressed <br /> the Board in support of the study and requested the Board's <br /> assistance in funding the study on a cost-sharing basis . <br /> (At this point in the meeting, Chairman Johnston had to depart <br /> and Vice Chairman Robbins assumed the chairmanship. ) <br /> Messrs. Jerry Goldsmith (Cedaredge) , Ed March (Mayor fthe <br /> Cedaredge) , and Jess Messenger (Mayor of Orchard City) opposed <br /> study, alleging that the local interests were not sufficiently <br /> briefed on the objectives of the study and on how the study was <br /> to be accomplished. Mr. Goldsmith, spokesman for the local inter- <br /> ests, commented at length on the reasons for the local opposition, <br /> which stems primarily from "Step One" of the proposed study <br /> consisting of an "Evaluation of Surface Creek Water Supply System. " <br /> This step involves an evaluation of the operation of the existing <br /> system and a detailed analysis of potential water-right exchanges . <br /> Following extended discussion among Board members and Mr. <br /> Goldsmith, Mr. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Vandemoer, that Board <br /> action on the District's request be tabled until the May 1985 <br /> Board meeting. Motion adopted unanimously. <br /> -6- <br />