Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Colorado Water Conservation Board recommends roughly $25 million in water‑plan grants after record application cycle
Loading...
Summary
The Colorado Water Conservation Board approved staff recommendations for 56 water‑plan grant awards totaling about $25 million from roughly $37 million available after a record 81 applications in the July 1 cycle. Staff highlighted multi‑benefit projects across agriculture, storage, conservation, and watershed health.
The Colorado Water Conservation Board on Friday approved staff recommendations to award about $25 million in water‑plan grants after a record July application cycle that produced 81 requests for roughly $39 million, CWCB grant section chief Janine Shaw said. Shaw told the board, “We had a record number of applications to review,” and recommended funding 56 projects from approximately $37 million available for the year.
The grants program, financed in part by sports‑betting tax revenue retained after the TABOR cap and appropriated through a multi‑year cycle, funds partner actions identified in the state water plan. Shaw said the review process focused on eligibility, multi‑benefit outcomes, collaboration and project readiness.
Staff highlighted a range of projects across categories. In the agriculture bucket, Mesa County’s Orchard Mesa check piping project requested $1,786,736 to pipe a conveyance structure that would both save water for irrigation and enable a new pedestrian path. Ben Wade, presenting an earlier WSRF item, described another applicant’s measurement needs: “Collectively, these four reservoirs lose approximately 900 acre‑feet annually to evaporation,” he said, noting the figure is an estimate without direct measurements and that the project would install eddy‑covariance sensors to quantify losses.
Other recommended awards included a Larimer County groundwater study (recommended $300,000) to map groundwater resources and better align surface‑water adequacy determinations with groundwater conditions; pilot projects such as winter sheet‑ice recharge demonstrations in the Rio Grande Valley; and conservation easement and buy‑protect‑sell pilots to keep water rights tied to farmland while exploring income diversification for farmers.
In storage and supply, staff recommended partial funding for the Lower Latham/Jergens Reservoir ancillary facility (a $1.5 million recommendation to reduce the loan amount previously approved) and full or partial funding for municipal resilience projects including a proposed 500‑acre‑foot reservoir feasibility study for John Griffith Park and an aquifer‑storage‑and‑recovery feasibility project in the South Metro Denver area.
Watershed and restoration awards recommended included invasive species removal and riparian restoration projects, wildfire‑ready action plans, and pilot projects that pair forest treatments with measurement programs to assess impacts on snow and soil moisture.
Board members asked several clarifying questions during discussion: Director Vasquez asked whether hydrology studies would assess recharge rates for the Larimer study, and staff said they would follow up with applicants to confirm. Director Combs urged clear documentation if staff intended to shift allocations between categories, saying staff should avoid giving the “impression that we’re freeing up money to fund more ag when we have set limits.” Shaw and other staff described the recommended allocations as grounded in target category allocations and partner feedback, and they noted partial funding or requests to reapply when projects were not yet ready.
Several applicants and partners spoke in support: Jeff Crane, representing shareholders of Farmers Ditch, thanked the board for its “progressive” approach; representatives of the Rye Resurgence Project and Sonoran Institute described market development and outreach components for low‑water crops and community engagement.
Next steps: the board approved the staff recommendations by voice votes on each category and on several grouped items. Staff said contracts will not be executed until required matching funds are secured for projects that depend on outside match and that partial or prioritized funding reflects the program’s statute and readiness assessments.
Details on individual awards, recommended amounts and project scopes were presented in staff materials and during the public meeting; where exact award amounts or vote tallies were not provided during the voice votes, staff recorded recommendations and will finalize contracts after match and scope clarifications.
