Laserfiche WebLink
Chips B a rry : I would advocate for a simple outline up front – there is nothing in here that <br />says how do we determine the availability of Colorado River water for p resent and future <br />uses. We haven’t got anything like that in here. What is the basic outline for <br />determining water availability? Natural hydrology, downstream obligations, perfected <br />uses – I want to see how you get from the question to the answer. Ever y point will be <br />subject to debate. We need to put that level of detail so that this document will make <br />sense to the public. <br /> <br />Ray Wright : There is a h uge amount of existing work out there, all credibly done fro m <br />the perspective of the people doing the w ork. The knowledgeable people in this state <br />probably believe they know the answer to the question Chips brought up. It would be fun <br />to have a PowerPoint presentation that distilled all of that current knowledge and <br />highlighted some of the conflicts in th e interpretation, as an educational tool for the <br />R oundtables. I d on’t know what the state of the Colorado River Decision Support <br />System on this is, but that was supposed to be able to answer those questions . What are <br />we really after here , and is the cond uct of a new study going to look particularly different <br />from what Randy (Seaholm) did in the 19 90 ’ s ? Will it be updated with new parameters, <br />new questions, new risks? I rea lly think that the true experts on this are already a long <br />way toward an answer. <br /> <br />Rep. Kathleen Curry : I u nderstand the immensity of this entire topic, but we can break it <br />down to manageable chunks. During leg islative session, R oundtables wanted to be <br />involved in the scoping and in the conduct of the study. Can’t we ask R oundtables for <br />input on what questions this study ca n answer? Get the question in T ask 4 out to them , <br />and get feedback? What I hear from staff is a lot of focus on needs, and that’s not the <br />study I thought I was voting for. However, we might find that Roundtables say <br />availability is dependent on needs. <br /> <br />Eric W ilkinson : At the last IBCC meeting, I thought we agreed to bifurcate and run the <br />supply side assessment and needs assessment we’ve already begun in parallel. If <br />R oundtables are comfortable with both being d one, that will assuage their fears. I think <br />an open ended document conveys that the state doesn’t have a go od grasp on what we’re <br />doing. I think the State need s to show leadership, put some flesh on the bones of this <br />scope of work, and send it out with “ draft ” written all over it. I think waiting until <br />August is alright. I d on’t want mistrust to develop and fester by waiting too long, but I <br />do want to create a product that everyone can respond to. <br /> <br />Chips B a rry : Supply and demand come together halfway t hrough the study, and not until <br />that point can you make an intelligent analysis of risk . We need to g et concepts and <br />methodology outlined, and take it out for comments by the R oundtables. <br /> <br />Rick Brown : I u nderstand that looking at future needs should not be our focus. Existing <br />deman ds are an intricate part of our currently available water . Looking at legal <br />availability, some feel strongly that we should look at current deman d and actual physical <br />supply. This is going to be a media hot - button th e minute we walk into a room. We n eed <br />to be thoughtful about what the rules are on current demand. <br /> 9 <br />