Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />, <br />, <br /> <br />STATE OF COLOMDO <br /> <br />O. <br />'" <br />." ~ <br /> <br />Colorado Water Conservation Board <br />Department of Natural Resources <br />721 Centennial Building <br />131 3 Sherman Street <br />Denver, Colorado 80203 <br />Phone: (3031 866-3441 <br />FAX: (3031 866,4474 <br /> <br />Roy Romer <br />Governor <br /> <br />MEMORANDUM <br /> <br />James S. Lochhead <br />Executive Director, DNR <br /> <br />OariesC. lile, P.E. <br />Director, eWeB <br /> <br />Peter H. Evans <br />Acting Director, ewes <br /> <br />TO: <br /> <br />Colorado Water Conservation Board Members <br /> <br />peterEvans?~ ~ <br />Acting Director <br /> <br />FROM: <br /> <br />DATE: <br /> <br />November 20,1998 <br /> <br />RE: <br /> <br />Agenda Item lla, November 23-34, 1998 Board Meeting-- <br />Anticipated 1999 Legislation - Statewide Water Resource Planning <br /> <br />As you probably recall, the legislation proposed by Representative Matt Smith (R- <br />Grand Junction) to provide the framework and funding for a statewide water resource <br />planning process (HB 98-1288) brought a lot of interested parties together but was not <br />successful last year, Discussions have continued throughout the summer, principally <br />between Representative Smith and representatives of Colorado Farm Bureau and <br />Colorado Water Congress members, Representative Smith has presented his concept to <br />many different groups in the last six months, including environmental interests and the <br />Legislative Legal Services staff. It appears there is still broad interest in pursuing this <br />proposal, so I have attached the latest draft produced by the Water CongresslFarm Bureau <br />group, This draft was recently presented to Representative Smith and I have not yet been <br />able to talk to him to discuss his reactions. However, I do know he has been trying to <br />schedule a funding discussion and that portion of this draft bill (the last I Yz pages) is <br />probably the weakest. Since the funding source and amounts have not been set, this <br />portion of the draft bill has received much less careful attention, <br /> <br />The two subjects which have been reviewed most carefully are I) the <br />establishment of "local planning groups" and 2) the mitigation provisions, It would be <br />naive to think that these concerns (and the funding issue) can be easily overcome, <br />Nonetheless, I continue to think that the proposed process could be very beneficial to <br />many communities throughout the state and to our overall assessment of water resource <br />needs, <br /> <br />Attachment <br /> <br />PHE L:/boardmem/nov98/1Ia <br />