Laserfiche WebLink
<br />E. Should d1fferences among areas be cons1dered? If so. how? <br /> <br />The Comm1ttee opposes the app11cat1on of a un1form system <br />that 1s app11cable to all areas of the state. The comm1ttee <br />strongly recommends allocat10n and adm1n1strat10n of <br />nontr1butary groundwater accord1ng to the character1st1cs of <br />the area of use. Some members urge that the determ1nat1on be <br />made by an adm1n1strat1ve ent1ty. The Comm1ttee d1d not agree <br />on how local d1fferences should be cons1dered. There are <br />several poss1b1l1t1es. <br /> <br />1. Adm1n1strat1ve rules part1cular to 1nd1v1dual areas. <br /> <br />2. Requ1rement that State Eng1neer cons1der factors that vary <br />among areas. <br /> <br />3. Oelegat10n of author1ty to local ent1t1es. <br /> <br />4. Spec1al laws relat1ng to Denver Bas1n (and others). <br /> <br />The comm1ttee recommends that because of the spec1al <br />character1st1cs of the Denver Bas1n and the presumed <br />demands for groundwater along the front range, that the <br />Denver Bas1n (Dawson-Arkose, Denver, Arapahoe, Laram1e-Fox <br />H111s) should be adm1n1stered cons1stent w1th those <br />cond1t10ns. The Comm1ttee was evenly sp11t on the <br />des1rab1l1ty of cont1nu1ng to apply ex1st1ng law (S.B. 213) <br />1n the Denver Bas1n, but most felt 1f the law were changed <br />to prov1de a means for dea11ng w1th part1ally tr1butary <br />groundwater, ex1st1ng law would be adequate. The Comm1ttee <br />1s not sat1sf1ed that only such m1nor changes would be <br />adequate for all aqu1fers 1n the state, such as those west <br />of the Cont1nental 01v1de or 1n the San Lu1s Valley. <br /> <br />-21- <br />