Laserfiche WebLink
<br />.... , <br /> <br />Discussion <br /> <br />The terms of the CA end in July 2000 unless extended. This means that the CA <br />participants will need to make significant process resolving many difficult issues in a <br />short time frame. To resolve these issues a number of policy and legal decisions will <br />need to be made. Specifically, we have included several topics for the Board to consider <br />and discuss. <br /> <br />1. Colorado can meet our obligations under the CA by providing water, acquiring an <br />interest in land, and/or perhaps via financial contribution. Nebraska and others do not <br />believe they can support an overall program that has all of the program water coming <br />from Nebraska sources. This suggests that Colorado may want to consider options <br />for providing more than 10,000 acre-feet of water. <br /> <br />Since our ground water re-regulation facility(s) are not completed we may want to <br />consider how we might more efficiently manage our water comnl1tments. In <br />particular, construction/modification of some form of surface storage may be <br />desirable. A surface storage facility used in conjunction with ground water re- <br />regulation could allow Colorado to "fine tune" water management so that we meet the <br />obligations of the CA efficiently. Additional benefits from a surface storage facility <br />could include help with future depletions and provide flexibility in water rights <br />administration. <br /> <br />Clearly, a project of this nature is ambitious, but the demands of the CA suggest that <br />we consider all options. If a surface storage facility were constructed it may make <br />sense to try and implement the project in conjunction with interested water users. <br />Under this scenario Colorado would not have to pay for the entire project and we <br />could use our portion of the stored water for the CA. Furthermore, Colorado could <br />recover some of the money we would spend on the project by leasing water for future <br />depletions when available. <br /> <br />2. With regard to the land component of the CA, does it make sense for Colorado to <br />hold an interest in land located in Nebraska? Given the constraints of the CA we may <br />have to acquire some land interest. However, would it be preferable to contribute <br />more water to the program rather than land? This might allow our monetary <br />contributions to benefit Colorado. If we acquire an interest in land we must be certain <br />to recover our costs if the program should end or change. <br /> <br />3. In evaluating our next steps for groundwater re-regulation, should we put more <br />energy into evaluating the possibility of constructing some portion of the re- <br />regulation facilities on lands other than Tamarack State Wildlife area? It is possible <br />that this approach might be less efficient from an administrative standpoint, however, <br />we might gain more flexibility in administering the water and we might have greater <br />independence if we minimize federal involvement. <br /> <br />2 <br />