IBCC Meeting Notes June 19 2007

• Title: IBCC Meeting Notes
• Date: 6/19/2007
• Interbasin CC - Doc Type: Meeting Notes

Jeris Danielson: I s Colorado’s obligation delivered at the state line or at L ee’s F erry?
Response: That is one of t he big issues. If it is to be delivered at state line, how do we
protect water from being used before reaches Lee’s F erry? There are als o sub - compacts
that come into play , and for now this is still an open question.

Harris Sherman: W hat is your curr ent budget and how many people are working on these
issues ?
Response : (James) We have three full - time attorneys who sit within a unit heade d by
Carole Angel, plus a paralegal and some temporary help. ( Ted ) S ome funding is coming
through the State’s litigation account, but we are not certain how long that will last. The
AG ’s office indicated they would ask for a gen eral fund allocation this past session. I
think we can last through the upcoming leg islative session, and may be going back to the
General Assembly next year.

Rick Brown then moved the group into a discussion of the scope of work for the Colorado River
Basin Availability study, joined by Ted Kowalski. At the Four Roundtable meeting the prior
day, Rick briefed the group on the current status of efforts, and the CWCB’s desire to use the
IBCC as a conduit for Roundtable input in developing the Scope of Work. Working with the
IBCC would simplify the logistics of gathering input, however Rick heard from those attending
the Four Roundtable meeting that they wanted to be mindful of the bottom - up component of the
process and h ave detailed involvement. He expressed hope that the model used to receive input
on the criteria and guidelines for use of funding might work again, with the IBCC develop ing a
“strawman” and then getting direct input from Roundtables. Rick stressed getting the scope right
as the most important part of the study. Carl Trick asked if the legislation providing funding for
the study specified that all Roundtables should participate, or if it mentioned just those in the
Colorado River basin. Rick responded that, in his interpretation, it mentions all Roundtables,
and added that the CWCB Board seemed to feel the same. Roundtables that don’t have interest
in the process will be able to participate to whatever level their membership feels is appropriate.

Ted Kowalski referenced the first iteration of the study outline, distributed to attendees, and
asked for input. He stated that the i ntroduction lays the groundwork for what CWCB proposes to
do in the study, and added that the Board will work in full consultation with, and the active
involvement of , the Basin Roundtabl es.

Discussion with the IBCC:

Kathleen Curry : Couldn’t we use SWSI’s terminology? Is there agreement on this?
Response (Rick Brown): We didn’t have an elaborate section on terminology , but can
draw on the SWSI document as a resource.

Ray Wright: The re s hould be some definition of “water availability”. Do we focus on
what is a reliable yield? Available water may mean different things to an irrigator (water
that shows up each year – physical availability), and to th e state (legal availability).
Havin g a d efinition will help define specific goals.

5