Laserfiche WebLink
find a date that worked for everyone, and expressing appreciate for the IBCC members that came <br />to participate. He asked for feedback from attendees. <br /> <br />Carl Trick responded that it wa s a very good meeting, and looked forward to the summary <br />because of it’s relevance to this meeting’s IBCC discussion . Eric Hecox promised to post the <br />summary on the website, and also send it attached to a mass email. Sarah Duncan from Denver <br />Water commen ted that the meeting was interesting and educational. She reflected on comments <br />from participants that seemed to be against trans - basin diversions, and added her view that water <br />rights should be treated as water rights, no matter where the water is used. <br /> <br />Stan Cazier referenced the presentation by Ken Knox, and his own impression that there are a lot <br />of outstanding issues with regard to the treatment of transbasin diversions within compact <br />administration. Eric Hecox asked for feedback on how to increase cro ss basin dialogue and <br />education, and mentioned joint Roundtable meetings. Peter Binney added his desire that a way <br />be found to continue conversation on some of the questions raised at the Four Roundtable <br />caucus. Kathleen Curry asked if attendees from outside the 4 Colorado Basin roundtables <br />participated in the afternoon work groups during the caucus. She suggested that those that did <br />participate go back to their Roundtables and share what they have heard, as a way of address ing <br />the issue raised by Pe ter, and stressed the need to retain the top - down nature of the process. <br /> <br />Mary Lou Smith asked the group to consider whether the right questions are being addressed, <br />and encouraged the group to raise the tough, core issues that may be the “elephants in t he room,” <br />such as the prior appropriation doctrine and how it meets our needs as a state. Mike Shimmin <br />added his opinion that we could be at a crossroads in history, where prior appropriation has <br />served all of our past water allocation needs, but might no t serve our needs in the future, and we <br />could be faced with the challenge of building something new. <br /> <br />John Porter said he’d wondered what intr astate compacts are out there, and stated that the <br />discussion at the caucus had made him wonder if the basins wo uld let the state engineer <br />determ ine how to administer a compact. He postulated that an intrastate compact might be one <br />way to address some of those issues. Bill Trampe observed that there has been a c hange in <br />attitude in west slope communities over the past 10 or 15 years to be m ore transparent and more <br />open, and that this was behind the inclusive process for the caucus. He said that he t hrew out a <br />challenge to caucus participants at the end of the meeting – what do the Roundtables think the <br />IBCC group should do? Bill continued that he planned to go back in a month to the Roundtables <br />and see if they had answers . <br /> <br />Marc Catlin added that he had found Bill’s question to the Roundtables interesting – what role do <br />the four Colorado basin Roundtables see the IBCC playing in the future? He pointed out a <br />possible disconnect between the way the IBCC sees its role and the vision of the Roundtables. <br />Marc reflected on the difficulty of representing a Roundtable, especially when there is not <br />agreement on or clarit y of roles. He also mentioned that many on the west slope would like to <br />put off having to look at the Colorado as a state resource for as long as they can, but they know it <br />is coming. He added that it is difficult to have that discussion when water use d ecisions on the <br />east slope don’t reflect what some might see as maximum conservation. <br /> <br /> 12 <br />