BOARD01811

• Board Meeting Date: 5/11/1998
• Description: Rio Grande Basin Issues - Closed Basin Project Issues
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

Peter Evans, Acting Director
Colorado Water Conservation Board
November 16, 1998
Page 3

funds, including CDBG, and have concluded that Water Conservation
board funding is the only viable source. No other source of state
funding exists for the contemplated use of the funds.

Numerous contacts were made with the Governors office and the
Colorado Department of local affairs to find grant funds, utilizing
the services of Jeff Reeser and Stewart Bliss of the Parcel law
firm representing the Horse Creek group as well as Shayne Madsen of
this firm. Community Development Block Grants appeared to be the
most promisin,g approach. Further contacts, took place with the
local HUD office. However, it was eventually determined that the
"fit" was insufficient to the job creation requirements of'CDBG.
Specifically, this program while administered by the State, is
strictly controlled by federal standards. The program is designed
to increase employment opportunities in qualified areas for
targeted populations. The federal restrictions required the
creation of new qualified jobs as a condition of awarding the
grant. Such conditions were intended to benefit urban areas and
simply did not match the needs of rural applicants.

Leaal Analvsis:

(1) The CWCB has specific statutory authority to make grants
for a number of purposes, including fish and wildlife
mitigation (37-60-122.2), species recovery (37-60-
122.2 (1) ), and demonstrations of water efficiency (37-60-
125 (1)). The CWCB also has broad discretionary authority
in advancing the interests of the State in water matters.
However, ~ 37-60-121 (1) (b) (IV) provides that grants shall
not be made, unless specifically authorized by the
general assembly acting by bill. For this reason, Box
Springs and Horse Creek do not request any independent
issuance of grant funds, but rather that the CWCB request
General Assembly approval of the requested grant as part
of the 1999 construction fund bill.

(2)

The State is
should take
expectations
agreement.

a party to the
the necessary
of the parties

Settlement Agreement
actions to fulfil
and the purposes of

and
the
the

By entering into the Settlement Agreement, the two State
agencies indicated their concurrence that a grant was a fair means
of completing the settlement. The grant concept was determined
necessary because of two economic facts. First, the $825,000 CWCB

Kros'., Madsen & MiUer, UC