My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD00926
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
1001-2000
>
BOARD00926
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 2:55:21 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 6:45:52 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
5/11/1998
Description
WSP Section - Arkansas River Issues - Offset Account at John Martin Reservoir
Board Meetings - Doc Type
Memo
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<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 />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.