Laserfiche WebLink
<br />DRAFT <br /> <br />1 Bill if the Reid Amendment is in it. We should be positive. Your first charge as the <br />2 CWCB should be to develop the water. You should be advocates of storage, and should <br />3 get on it and go instead of listening to the naysayers, Didn't like what the <br />4 Environmentalists said about drying up all the streams in black and white, Look what <br />5 Wolford Mountain has given for recreation and wildlife, Because entities got together <br />6 and worked it out. That's your statutory charge. <br />7 <br />8 Greg Hoskin - interesting issues, you're wanning up and I want to get to them, First, <br />9 what do you see this Board could do to get fanns to stay in agriculture, and second, <br />10 should we do anything? <br />11 <br />12 Fred Anderson - Its got to be economically viable, If you are able to develop water to <br />13 the highest and best use and still make it not too expensive, there won't be that same <br />14 temptation to sell out. You come in and all of a sudden, some of these things make no <br />15 sense at the federal level, but you go with it. Sen: Allard, he said he'd oppose the Fann <br />16 Bill ifthe amendment was in it. Glad to see it. We've got to stop it. <br />17 <br />18 Greg Hoskin - what you're saying is" ,make more water available across the state, <br />19 without considering who uses it. <br />20 <br />21 Eric Wilkinson - you're talking about supply and demand. We've got limited M&I <br />22 water and we're getting more demand, The way to remedy that is to get pressure off <br />23 Agriculture - create a higher, larger supply, The ability to do that and do it at a rate <br />24 that's cheaper than buying Agricultural water, its going to be difficult to find storage <br />25 projects unless they're subsidized by the State of Colorado, We've got to make policy <br />26 about whether we're going to help fund these projects to make it more cost efficient than <br />27 buying out ag water, For the Ag economy to grow to the point where fanning is more <br />28 economical than selling water, it would have to grow significantly, Example - If you have <br />29 a unit ofCBT water to grow an acre of com, YOIf'd be better of selling it and put the <br />30 money in the bank, and you'd be better off than growing the com, Strictly economic <br />31 view, it makes sense to buy Ag water, Building supply, rates will have to be subsidized. <br />32 Would have to be statewide policy and will need lots of backing, <br />33 <br />34 Fred Anderson - I was thinking that when I carried SB-19, I expected state money to be <br />35 leveraged so we could have those projects, I'vel always contended you need storage as <br />36 high in the watershed for as long as possible, P~ople don't realize where food comes <br />37 from and why we need to have the water for it. 'Let people get hungry and maybe then <br />38 they'll figure out where food comes from. <br />39 <br />40 Eric Wilkinson- One does not have to be exclusive of the other. If the state wants to sit <br />41 down and get policy to preserve Ag, everyone should realize that the development of <br />42 storage will help both Ag and M&I. Need good planning, It's got to be planned out. <br />43 The way we're going now seems to be random,; Approach has got to be coordinated so <br />44 we can have a planned outcome when it's over, ' <br />45 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />8 <br />