South Platte Basin Minutes 3-14

• Basin Roundtable: South Platte
• Title: Minutes
• Date: 3/14/2006
• Basin Roundtables - Doc Type: Minutes

Concern: bit more manipulation required-but each question could be laid out
individually; investment of time would probably be required;
3) user group: difference fi-om list serve: this has a web home, deal with it at
the web serve, or need to set up an email account; so could set up a dummy
email account for these conversations
Waskom: opines that blog would be best use;
Spann: benefit would be that you could follow thread of one particular
discussion, then able to see a pattern emerge from one issue. Spann sees value
in blog as well;
Waskom: also someone could compile this information; but problem, no
security there, whereas the list serve is private.
Harold Evans:
4 th alternative: can we all answer the questions and send them to one source
then let someone compile? More efficient if we can answer, send to one place.
Jerke: perhaps not ready to answer these questions; Hecox has suggested to
bring in a facilitator to help bring focus.
Philo Shelton: highspeed internet important for blog; probably makes sense to
statt with Harold's recommendation, then go forward.
Jerke: think about direction through evening; are the questions we received
the right questions. ..if we stick to only these questions and don't give a
chance to use a facilitator and to educate ourselves, perhaps we are limiting
ourselves. Roundtable will readdress later in the evening.

IV: Discussion of IBCC charter:
Jerke: Asks if Shimmin and Wilkinson are looking for clear direction from
membership tonight:
1) what level of direction; 2) who would be actual party to come to a
decision-roundtable or delegates; 3) alternates.
Shimmin:
How strong do we want legal bind to be between basins? Do these agreements
have force of law?
Wilkinson:
As deemed appropriate by IBCC but subject to statutes; "binding or
enforceable"
Re the 3 options: Charter does not address it; as legally binding as parties
agree; or open to suggestion.
Hecox: issue: who are negotiating parties and to what extent does this process
bind somebody because of language in act; no legal hammers; so not a lot of
options that IBCC can take:
1) no way these can be legally enforceable; but this does not acknowledge
vehicles that are already used: MOU, etc. This process is meant to be
more of a fomm for these negotiations; it would not be legal for IBCC to
say that there would be a legally binding agreement; hope is that this
process would facilitate negotiations.
Shimmin: to focus discussion: opinion is that this is one of the ambiguities in
statute fi-om day it was adopted; per prior appropriations, appropriator

3