Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Darryl Steele: We’ve g ot to really push the water supply availability side of this out there <br />in front. Any ot her discussion is a moot point i f you don’t have wate r. <br /> <br />Rick Brown : Roundtables were pretty comfortable with our SWSI assessment of supply <br />availability until they thought about what it might mean. I’m trying to sort through how <br />much of the comments we’re hearing are bluster before w e move forward with thi s one. I <br />d idn’t want to go too far with this scope because it is going to fee l like a big step once we <br />take it . <br />John Porter: I think I hear Rick saying that current demands have to be pulled apart from <br />t he needs assessment and looked at as a part of the supply. I hear you saying that is not <br />as easy as I thought it might be. <br />Rick: I think it is pretty easy but I’m not sure you’d agree with me. How we would <br />articulate that would be similar to procedures used in SWSI. There are also high altitude <br />coeffic ients we want to now factor into demands. I think from our feedback today we <br />can definitely take that next step. <br /> <br />Melinda Kassen: Want to go back to what C hips said about being on parallel track s . <br />There is a third piece. We need to know supply and dema nd, as well as answer <br />administrative questions because that is going to say what is available whe re and when. <br />That is why we talked about rulemaking. If you don’t know how a compact call would <br />be administered, then you don’t really know what is available when. <br /> <br />Bill Trampe : S ome of the work groups yesterday were talking about wanting to be <br />involved in the process . We told them to go beyond that, and a sked specifically what <br />they want from the study. That was hard for them to answer, and I get that same feeling <br />a round the table this morning. The q uestion is whether we can come to a hard and fast <br />number with all of the opinions around this state. Can we agree that we’re going to be <br />deciding in ranges around what the water availability is? And when we ge t to needs, <br />we’re going to be looking at risk. Can we focus on that? This has been batted around for <br />a long time. We n eed to somehow eliminate this historical polarization and get on with <br />it. I w ould hope we could agree to work in ranges and be willing to talk about risk and <br />what different parts of the state are going to have to suffer if we go through with this. <br /> <br />Rick Brown : Look at SWSI table 7.4 as an example of ranges. We have talked internally <br />about using a similar procedure, and int egrating the concept to risk to define a set of <br />ranges given different kinds of assumptions . Please let us know i f you have big concerns <br />about wha t you see there. <br /> <br />Chris Moore summarized the discussion, noting that between now and the A ugust IBCC <br />meeting , CWCB will t ake a look at question of scope – what questions will this study answer? <br />Revisions will i nclude feedback from the last me eting, and address methodology. The goal is to <br />get a “ straw man ” back to this group before August, in time for perhaps one iteration before the <br />next meeting. CWCB will include a preamble that discusses the process of getting input on the <br />document. Harris Sherman stressed the importance of getting a revised draft out as soon as <br />th <br />possible, and Rick and Ted agreed to work toward July 13 as a date to have the next iteration to <br /> 10 <br />