Minutes North Platte 2-9-06

• Basin Roundtable: North Platte
• Title: Minutes
• Date: 2/9/2006
• Basin Roundtables - Doc Type: Minutes

. Regarding Article II, Goals and Objectives:
1) Question was raised as to whether we should include water right or private
property user's language into first bulleted statement.
2) It was suggested that we might consider adding back in some of the goals
and objectives listed in the suggested by-laws document initially distributed.
3) Change language in bullet referring to the socio-economic we(fare (?fthe
North Platte Basin (leave qflroundtable).
. Aliicle III, Definitions. Had discussion regarding whether to change the
definition of "consensus" in this section.
. Article VI, Decision-Making. Lengthy discussion regarding use of majority vote
and consensus. Should majority vote be the fallback after we have already
engaged in collaborative decision making and consensus building? General
discussion was that rather than get into developing complex "consensus rules"
the group will work to try to get agreement in everything we do, if we cannot
reach agreement, then we will fall back to making a decision by majority vote.
One example of recommended language... "we will tlY to meet consensus and
will hear and reconcile all views as a primmy collaborative too/. "
. Article VIII, Roundtable Powers. Discussion ensued regarding language "valid
and binding". We will follow the IBCC Charter. Where does the authority
really lie? If basins reach agreements or do MOU's, do they then have to go
through all the legal processes? Power in this section actually refers to
"political" power. Eric Hecox agreed to send Kent some language to consider as
we rewrite this section.

Report of First IBCC Meeting
First IBBC meeting was held in Denver on Friday, Feb 3. Meeting included a great deal
of talk and venting of concerns. This was expected. A Draft charter was distributed and
right away participants interpreted that the IBCC was not a grassroots process but was a
top down thing. The draft charter at least provides a starting point for the discussion. It
is going to be interesting what's going to come out of statewide meetings. Expect it to be
a long process and are willing to give it a try, but not sure if it' s possible to reach
consensu s. It will be difficult to reach consensu s. Negotiation takes a long time. Lot's
of questions to continue during second meeting. Which comes first the roundtable or the
IBCC group? Neighboring states and compacts are coming up. Everyone seems to be
there to protect their own interests. HB 1177 is perceived by some to be used as a vehicle
to negotiate between basins to reach an agreement and protect ourselves and our
respective basins of origin. The process could backfire if this side negotiation prevents
overall progress.

Eric Hecox's perspective is that the IBCC is right where the DNR expected it to be-in a
position to define the process. Task is to write the charter. Paliicipants will have to
determine what type of leadership role they wish to have. Initiators of process
intentionally left this wide open for participants to define how process will evolve.
Suspicion exists that there is a hidden agenda. Legislation from Denver sets up the
structure. Roundtables are moving in different directions with some more active, some