Laserfiche WebLink
Bill Trampe: We also m ight want to define risk and level of risk . <br /> <br />Peter Binney : Does the study exclude any future transbasin diversions? <br />Stan Cazier: C urrent transbasin diversions should be involved in th e calculations, such <br />as Denver’s water right. <br />Rick Brown: We need to include any appropriated water that is not currently being used. <br /> <br />Doug Scott : How long do we have to make a delivery, r egardless of destination? <br />Ted Kowalski (CWCB): We should probabl y look at possible timing and delivery <br />obligation of calls and how this might affect the amount of water that is available. <br /> <br />Ray Wright : The state should l ook at mo dels of other state compacts and whether they <br />can serve as an outline for what we do on the Colorado. <br /> <br />Rick Brown : I want to come back to the issue of phasing that has been raised and the <br />question of whether $500,000 will be enough. Some have suggested that the first phase <br />should focus on the supply side, recognizing that current demands affec t supply <br />availability. <br /> <br />Melinda Kassen : We said at the last IBCC meeting that we need a set of study goals, and <br />that the first phase would focus on supply and water availability. I don’t think you’ll <br />have those results if you just do the six tasks you’ve got listed in your scope of work. <br />Response (Ted): Task 4 gets at that issue: what do you think this study needs to answer? <br />Melinda Kassen : I thought this study was going to answer questions, not just formulate <br />them. <br />Peter Binney: We talked about doing a hydrologic study at the last IBCC meeting, and I <br />hope what I see here is a very small allocation of the $500,000 , because real meat is not <br />addressed in these five pages. Can you talk about how we will get that done? We have <br />to get the supply questions answered in this study. <br />Rick Brown : T ask 4 would outline key questions and methodologies. <br />Chris Moore: The minutes from the last meeting provide a record of key questions, and <br />this input could be incorporated into the preliminary document. <br /> <br />Rep. Kathle en Curry: A re you looking for comments on this document, w hich will then <br />be taken to the R oundtables? <br />Rick Brown : We w ould like you to think about it and give us more feedback. If possible, <br />we will work through a couple of iterations with the IBCC before it is given to the <br />Roundtables. <br />John Porter: Southwest is comfortable with the model we used to get Roundtable input <br />on the criteria and guidelines. We d on’t want the scope of work to come to us as a done <br />deal, but instead have the opportunity for some input before it is finalized. <br />Darryl Steele : Each basin should have input. <br /> <br />Harris Sherman : Completing T ask 4 ma y trigger another scope of work. I t hink the <br />L egislature intended that we make some progress on this as soon as possible. We have <br /> 6 <br />