Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />The Colorado Water Conservation Board <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />(1990) provide the Board with a statutory mechanism to respond <br />to all ten requests by including each of the requests in the <br />annual Construction Fund Bill which it submits to the General <br />Assembly for its approval. <br /> <br />CONFIDENTIAL <br /> <br />QUESTION 2: <br />easements? <br /> <br />Does the Board have the authority to grant <br /> <br />RESPONSE 2: The provisions of ~24-82-201, et seq. lOB C.R.S. <br />(1988) provide the Board with the power to grant easements to <br />the governmental and quasi-governmental entities:! <br /> <br />1. City of Englewood request for a twenty foot easement <br />for construction of a 24" water line on the east side of <br />the South Platte River from West Oxford Avenue to <br />Englewood's raw water intake at Union Avenue. <br /> <br />2. Urban Drainage and Flood Control District and <br />Columbine Valley request for temporary construction <br />easements, and easements for facilities constructed as <br />part of its project to tie their channel improvements to <br />Dutch Creek into the Project. <br /> <br />3. South Suburban Park & Recreational District's request <br />has already been presented to the Board.2 <br /> <br />4. CDOT request for a permanent easement for the <br />construction of a segment of the new Santa Fe Drive.3 <br /> <br />There are two methods by which the Board can deal with future <br />requests of this type: <br /> <br />1. have all such requests be presented to the Board for <br />its consideration; <br /> <br />The Littleton requests are not applicable to the issues <br />involved in this memo. <br /> <br />2 This example requires an <br />unnecessarily lengthen this memo. <br />deemed necessary by the Board. <br /> <br />additional analysis which would <br />That analysis can be provided if <br /> <br />3 There is additional discretion for the Board in this <br />instance since CDOT is also part of the State of Colorado. In the <br />construction of the Auraria Parkway, Auraria and CDOT agreed that <br />both of their interests would be best served by Auraria granting <br />CDOT a permanent easement for the Parkway. That easement was <br />approved on the basis that both entities were part of the State. <br />Auraria received the full fair market value for the easement. <br />