![]() coli concentrations showed no consistent downgradient increase in Leach Creek. coli in samples ranged from 25.9 to more than 2,420 CFU/100 mL, and geometric mean concentrations at sites ranged from 160 to 259 CFU/100 mL. coli concentration was measured between the two most upstream sites. coli concentrations generally increased in the downstream direction in Adobe Creek however, increases were not seen between all sites. coli concentrations in samples ranged from 45.7 to more than 2,420 CFU/100 mL (method upper reporting limit for undiluted samples), and geometric mean concentrations at sites ranged from 301 to 1,180 CFU/100 mL. coli concentrations at sites along Adobe Creek and Leach Creek exceeded the State recreational use standard of 126 colony forming units per 100 milliliters (CFU/100 mL). Sample data were available at five sites along Adobe Creek and at six sites along Leach Creek, the two tributaries in the study area that are impaired for E. This study analyzed water-quality and streamflow data for 3 main-stem sites (2 sites along the Colorado River and 1 site along the Gunnison River) and 29 selected sites on tributaries to the Colorado River. coli, total recoverable iron, and dissolved selenium using existing data and (2) identify water-quality data gaps to inform future monitoring strategies. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Grand Valley Drainage District and Colorado Water Conservation Board, conducted a study to (1) characterize concentrations, loads, and load reductions for E. The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Water Quality Control Division is required to develop total maximum daily loads for these constituents in these tributaries. coli), total recoverable iron, and dissolved selenium. The Chamber supports an extended process of securing more information in a collaborative manner with all entities responsible for drainage and thoroughly exploring all funding models, the implementation of a sunset provision on the funding source, more transparency and accountability in the form of reports issued to taxpayers regarding how project priorities are identified, how funds are being spent, and how funds are leveraged with money from other sources-including grants.”Ĭlick here to download full version of the Grand Junction Area Chamber of Commerce August 2016 Newsletter.Tributaries to the Colorado River in the Grand Valley in western Colorado (segment COLCLC13b) have been placed on the State of Colorado 303(d) list as impaired for Escherichia coli (E.The growth of businesses improves the economy, increases job opportunities and adds to the tax base. The Chamber opposes the imposition of an impact fee for business expansions.The Chamber supports the development of thoughtful alternatives regarding new fees, taxes, and grants to meet the need.The Chamber supports a valley-wide solution to addressing the area’s drainage problems, which of necessity involves governmental entities in addition to the Grand Valley Drainage District.The Chamber’s position on the matter has been clearly articulated to all concerned and remains the same. Ultimately, it is the hope of the Grand Junction Chamber and Mesa County that we can quickly get back to focusing on this valley wide drainage problem and devising a more comprehensive and collaborative approach to addressing the needs to manage storm water in Mesa County without harming our members and the business community at large. This review and final determination is still warranted and necessary to provide clarity to affected residents and businesses. The lawsuit is still proceeding and the Chamber is committed to moving forward and getting a final ruling about whether the fee is an impermissible tax. “The Grand Junction Area Chamber of Commerce is disappointed that it was unable to obtain a preliminary injunction that would have immediately halted collection of the Grand Valley Drainage District’s “fees” Such an injunction would have likely allowed businesses and individuals that have not paid their invoices to keep those dollars circulating in our local economy while the matter is further reviewed and a determination is made on the merits of the case. Shown below is our official statement on that action: On July 19th Judge Bottger denied the request for an injunction. The basis for the suit is to get clarity as to whether this is a fee or a tax subject to voter approval under TABOR. The Chamber and Mesa County filed a complaint and a request for an injunction against the Grand Valley Drainage District earlier this year in response to their invoicing members a “fee” that put an inordinate burden on the business community. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |