Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />'. <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />DRAFT <br /> <br />PROPOSED WATER RESOURCES ACT OF 1998 <br />ALTERNATIVE APPROACH <br />DECEMBER 30, 1997 <br /> <br />Section 1 <br /> <br />The Legislature would direct that the state, through the CWCS and the SEO, would <br />facilitate water project development by assisting in actions that would include, but not be limited <br />to: (1) bringing together interested parties within a basin for purposes of project planning; (2) the <br />identification of project alternatives that meet multiple party and multi-purpose needs; and (3) <br />removing impediments to project development, such as permitting, political, and environmental <br />obstacles. In meeting these objectives, the state may also need to take a lead role in identifying <br />the future "nonconsumptive use" needs within the state. The Legisla~re will need 10 provide <br />state funds for project assessments, environmental analysis, process facilitation, or mitigation. <br />Basically, a five-step process would be followed: <br /> <br />I. The state, through the CWCS, would initially convene local stakeholder-driven <br />processes designed to first identify present and future consumptive use and non- <br />consumptive use water needs in each identified basin and sub-basin, and then <br />identify and analyze alternative solutions for meeting each area's identified needs, <br />The basins in question would be the Arkansas, Rio Grande, South Platte, and <br />North Platte River basins, as well as the four principal sub-basins of the Colorado <br />River, Le. the mainstem Colorado, Gunnison, San Juan and Green (Yampa and <br />White). <br /> <br />n, <br /> <br />The CWCB and State Engineer would review the work of the basin groups, <br />including the identified alternatives, for purposes of addressing key issues uf <br />statewide interest. Specifically, do the alternatives identified in the stakeholder- <br />driven process address: <br />