Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. . <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />issues have intensified and have been the primary source of complaints from landowners <br />and agricultural producers. <br /> <br />Since the initial Scope of Study did not contain a groundwater analysis component or <br />other water resource concems, a portion of the additional $50,000 in funding from the <br />1997 Colorado General Assembly was earmarked for groundwater analysis. However, <br />since the groundwater problem has intensified, we feel that the Scope of Study should be <br />re-formulated to reflect these extremely significant conditions. <br /> <br />To assist in the re-formulation process, three alternatives have been developed for your <br />consideration. At the July 1998 Board Meeting, the staff we will formally present the <br />three proposed alternatives. The presentation will also address funding and new agency <br />concerns for the Upper Reach study effort. The altematives are listed below with <br />presently perceived pros and cons for each. <br /> <br />PROPOSED ACTIONS <br /> <br />Alternative No.1 <br /> <br />Continue with the ioint CWCB/AlbuQuerQue studv effort which would be funded and <br />cost-shared under the Corps' Section 22 Planninf! Assistance To States Prof!1"am. This <br />alternative would have the same study objectives as outlined in the current Scope of <br />Study but would not contain a comprehensive groundwater analysis. <br /> <br />Pros: September 30, 1999 completion date. <br />$20,000 -$40,000 study cost for CWCB <br /> <br />Cons: Groundwater problem not adequately addressed. <br />Congress has recently decreased funding for the Section 22 program and may <br />continue to decrease it annually. <br />This is a very piecemeal approach to resolving complex problems. <br /> <br />Alternative No.2 <br /> <br />Joint CWCB/Corps studv effort under the Corps' General Investigation (Gl) authority. <br />The study effort would expand the Scope of Study and thereby recognize the significant <br />groundwater problems in the Upper Reach. It would also establish a study effort that is <br />more watershed-based. A comprehensive groundwater analysis would be undertaken. It <br />'.'ooould also cnl'~ain tre currently proposed Scope of Study initiatives including: <br />0- /<oj '-t":'-...~~._ ..:-':lo,-~~~;;;:~~ 1d ,- _:;Ligacion, 2) ~1i5toricai research, 3) recommendations for <br />channel maintenance activities, 4) review of reservoir operations,S) aerial mapping, and <br />6) vegetative management. <br /> <br />Pros: Groundwater problem adequately addressed. <br />Higher federal cost sharing contribution required. <br />