Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Members, Colorado Water Conservation Board <br />July 1, 1980 <br />Page three <br /> <br />Prior to enactment of Senate Bill 537 by the 1$7$ General Assembly, <br />construction funds were limited. Consequently, projects for which <br />applications were received were, for the most part, restricted in <br />scope. Furthermore, the Board has essentially accepted any project <br />without regard to its purpose. Finally, applications received and proj- <br />ects authorized have consisted primarily of improvements to or exten- <br />sions of domestic water supply systems, In fact, projects completed, <br />under construction, or authorized on or before July 1, 1979, consisted <br />of eleven municipal or domestic water supply systems, two irrigation <br />systems, and one flood control project, with one of the foregoing <br />projects including recreational facilities. One reservoir has been built, <br /> <br />Following enactment of Senate Bill 537 and given the legislative <br />proposals under consideration by the lS80 General Assembly (namely, <br />Senate Bill l4S which was subsequently passed by the General Assembly <br />and signed by the Governor) we have had a surge of new applications. <br />A number of the proposed projects would require substantial amounts of <br />state funds for both feasibility investigations (into the hundreds of <br />thousands of dollars) and actual construction (several tens of millions <br />of dollars). Proposed projects falling in this category include the <br />Fruitland Mesa, West Divide, Grand Nesa, North Poudre Irrigation Company, <br />and Rock Creek. <br /> <br />Issues <br /> <br />With this general background, and in light of the expanded program <br />authorized by Senate Bill 537 (1979 session) and Senate Bill 149 (1980 <br />session), the staff feels it appropriate to raise several issues for <br />Board consideration. These major issues are set forth below: <br /> <br />1. Criteria for selecting future projects in which the Board will <br />participate. <br /> <br />A. As indicated above, the Board has historically accepted <br />applications for all project proposals on a first come- <br />first served basis without reference to the purposes to <br />be served or the total state funds required for the fea- <br />sibility study or construction. Should this procedure be <br />continued or should preference be given to certain kinds <br />of projects (e.g., should irrigation projects or water <br />storage facilities be accorded a priority over municipal <br />and/or domestic water sys~ems)? Should new storage <br />