Laserfiche WebLink
<br />SECTIDNONE <br /> <br />Introduction and Background <br /> <br />Storm water managers from five local governmental entities (Mesa County, the Grand Junction <br />Drainage District, the City of Grand Junction, the City of Fruita, and the Town of Palisade, <br />known as "the five entities") have been meeting for approximately three years to discuss <br />common problems and identify potential solutions to stormwater and drainage management <br />issues within the Orand Valley. In a broad sense, the general issues of concern include: <br /> <br />· How to fund, coordinate and complete regional projects that benefit multiple jurisdictions, or <br />cross jurisdictional boundaries, <br /> <br />· How to achieve, and maintain compliance with new state and federal mandates for <br />stormwater management contained in Clean Water Act Phase II regulations, effective March <br />2003,and <br /> <br />· How to prioritize, fund, and perform the maintenance and replacement of existing drainage <br />infrastructure that is now undersized due to growth, or because maintenance has been ignored <br />in the past. <br /> <br />Three of the most significant problems facing the five entities are: <br /> <br />· Lack of drainage basin planning studies which identify the problems and needs within <br />specific basins and which present plans for improvements in the most cost-efficient and <br />coordinated manner, <br /> <br />. Lack of a consistent, coordinated regional approach to stormwater management, and <br /> <br />. Lack of adequate funding for both local and regional projects. <br /> <br />During 2001 and 2002, numerous briefings were given by stormwater managers to elected <br />officials and citizen groups. In June 2002, elected officials from the five entities individually <br />passed resolutions authorizing a feasibility study of the potential for unification of certain <br />stormwater activities, and authorizing formation of a Steering Committee to solicit citizen input <br />and advisory recommendations on stormwater and drainage issues. Funding for the project was <br />committed from the five entities, a $70,000 grant from the Colorado Water Conservation Board <br />was solicited and received, a consultant was hired, and a Steering Committee was selected. The <br />Steering Committee members covered a broad range of interests, including real estate <br />development, insurance, farming, and business owners. Many of the members had experience <br />with flooding issues. None of the Stccring Committee members were elected officials during <br />this process. Details of the selection of Steering Committee members are in Section 3. <br /> <br />Steering Committee meetings began in December 2002. The general purpose of this Unification <br />Feasibility Study, and Steering Committee process, was to: "... investigate the legal, <br />administrative, operational, financial, physical, and political aspects of stormwater <br />management, flood hazard mitigation and Clean Water Act Phase 11 Compliance services <br />provided to the customers of the myriad of entities responsible for those functions within the <br />Grand Valley, and determine if the cost of storm water management and Phase 11 compliance <br />services can be reduced, or the Level of Service increased through the use of common resources <br />and unified management." It was expected that the Steering Committee would issue a set of <br />findings on the current status of stormwater management in the Grand Valley, and provide <br />advisory recommendations to the elected officials concerning goals and strategies for future <br />activities. <br /> <br /> <br />URS <br /> <br />TJPROJEC-rS\22236C22_GRAND_VALlEY\SUB_OO\6 O_PROJ_DELlV\FINAL REPORTiFINAl REPT REV 4.DOC\g-JUl-Q3\\ 1-1 <br />