Laserfiche WebLink
<br />, <br /> <br />filings are, in fact, "preserving the natural environment to a reasonable degree". These projects _ <br />will be completed as time becomes available. .. <br /> <br />Lastly, staffhas entered into cooperative agreements to help address some of its budget, resource, <br />and staffing limitations. One example is the cooperative agreement between the CWCB and <br />Colorado Trout Unlimited that provides an opportunity for CTU members to assist the Board <br />with monitoring its ISF water rights when they go fishing. While these agreements must be <br />carefully crafted, they provide an opportunity for local participation in the ISF Program and a <br />very cost-effective method of physically protecting the Board's ISF water rights. <br /> <br />Develoning Additional Strategies to Address the Subcommittee Issues <br />A review of the Subcommittee issues presented in Appendix A led staff to a discussion of the <br />factors that currently limit the Board's ability to address some, or all, of the issues. The limiting <br />factors identified by staff were (I) staffing, budget, and resources, (2) ISF legislation, (3) legal <br />issues, and (4) CWCB Policy. Many issues were limited by more than one factor. Other issues <br />had few current limitations and were addressed internally by staff, as discussed previously. <br /> <br />Staff also found the Subcommittee participant's issues to be all encompassing (wide-ranging) <br />and complex. Staff suggests that resolution of each issue will probably require a unique strategy. <br />Determining the proper strategy to apply will likely require the CWCB and its staff to consider <br />the complexity of each issue, identifY the factors that may limit resolution of the issue, and <br />evaluate the unique set of circumstances surrounding the issue. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />These discussions led staff to conclude that the Board's general policy of considering issues <br />on a case-by-case basis is probably the best strategy for dealing with the issues raised by <br />the Subcommittee participants also. A case-by-case strategy allows the Board to remain <br />responsive to public concerns and develop unique solutions to complex water-related issues <br />as those issues mature within specific topical and/or geographic areas. <br /> <br />The case-by-case strategy has many advantages with regard to the general issues raised by the <br />Subcommittee participants. With regard to the Subcommittee's concerns on new appropriations, <br />methodologies, and acquisitions for "other uses", the case-by-case strategy assures that the <br />Board's decisions are based on the best-available scientific data and are tailored to the unique <br />environmental and water development requirements of individual drainage basins. Regarding <br />Board policy issues such as inundation, the case-by-case strategy would allow interested <br />individuals to work with CWCB staff to clarifY the Board's Rules and Regulations on inundation <br />and present the proposed revisions to the Board for consideration. Issues that may require <br />revisions to the current ISF statute are also likely to be addressed most easily if consensus can be <br />reached between the Board and its constituency prior to approaching the legislature. Similarly, <br />requests for changes in CWCB policy could be most effectively evaluated on a case-by-case <br />basis. <br /> <br />Alternatively, the Board could elect to (I) continue the Subcommittee process and address each <br />issue individually or (2) prioritize its interest in the issues, direct staff to evaluate strategies for e <br /> <br />6 <br />