Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />STATE OF COLORJ\DO <br /> <br />Q <br /> <br />Colorado Water Conservation Board <br />Department of Natural Resources <br />1313 Sherman Street, Room 721 <br />Denver. Colorado 80203 <br />Phone: (303) 866-3441 <br />FAX: (3031 866.4474 <br />www.cwcb.state.co.u5 <br /> <br />TO: <br /> <br />Rod Kuharich <br /> <br />FROM: <br /> <br />Balunan Hatami <br /> <br />MEMORANDUM <br /> <br />Bil/Owens <br />Governor <br />.Greg E. Walcher <br />Executive Director <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />Rod Kuharich <br />eweB Director <br />Dan McAuliffe <br />Deputy Director <br /> <br />DATE: November 16,2001 <br /> <br />SUBJECT: WQCC Meeting Summary in Lamar <br /> <br />On November 13, 2001, Steve Miller and I attended the Water Quality Control Commission <br />meeting in Lamar. Also attending were Steve Witte, Keith Kepler, Monique Morey, and Dan <br />Neuhold from Division 2 in Pueblo, Special Attomey David Robbins, SECWCD Manager Tom <br />Pointon, and Kevin Seiter of the Kansas Division of Water Resources in Garden City. Two <br />important issues were the highlights of this meeting: <br /> <br />Issues Formulation Hearing concerning water quality designations, classifications and <br />standards for the Arkansas River and Rio Grande basins (Regulations 32 and 36). <br />Informational briefing by Colorado and Kansas representatives regarding recently <br />established TMDLs by Kansas Jor the Arkansas River from stateline to Garden City. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />The WQCC spent nearly two hours on the Issues Formulation Hearing. The WQCD staff <br />presented its proposals for the Arkansas River and Rio Grande basins, followed by public <br />comments. Except for the EP A, I do not believe anyone expressed concerns about the Rio <br />Grande basin. For the Arkansas River, some mining-related issues were raised for the upper <br />reach of the river, while municipal issues were the, dominant topic for the middle to lower <br />reaches of the river. No entity specifically raised water rights issues, even though some concerns <br />were expressed with regard to stream designation and potential changes for aquatic life <br />classifications. <br /> <br />It maybe of interest to you that from the City of Pueblo's presentation, I got the impression that <br />Pueblo might soon file for an in-channel diversion water right for its Arkansas River Legacy <br />Project. This project is apparently plaimed for habitat improvement along a reach of the <br />Arkansas River downstream of Pueblo Reservoir. Also noteworthy was a concern raised by the <br />City of La Junta Utility Director, regarding high costs associated with advanced drinking water <br />treatment, specifically with regard to total dissolved solids removal from drinking water. He <br />expressed his desire for the water quality in the river to meet the secondary drinking water <br />standards, and referred to the feasibility study for the Arkansas Valley Conduit being conducted <br />with the CWCB assistance. <br /> <br />Flood Protection. Water Project Planning and Financing. Stream and lake Protection <br />Water Supply Protection. Conservation Planning <br />