South Platte Basin Minutes 3-14

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

before this roundtable; so those parties need to come here for facilitation. We
are here for the purpose of having these discussions.
So per the language "to the extent you can":
Shimmin: In my attempt to conceptualize: found wide range of possibilities of
agreements some of which would not be legally binding but we could be
helpful; for example: a discussion of how to meet the demand gap: can we
agree that the SW ASI study is the platform we want to look at, and at least
two basin roundtables would agree? Thus, small agreements like this might
not have any context of being legally binding.
So language in Article 8 works because it would leave it up to roundtable to
have discussion re: does it make any sense... this language embraces that.
Jerke: Roundtable or IBCC would never have standing, but seems that this
language acknowledges that.
Kim Killin: What form of enforcement do IBCC or roundtables have?
Shimmin: None, language embraces that.
Vote of Motion: Oppose: 2; Majority of over 60%.

2) Negotiating parties: Ratification / Report by IBCC back to roundtables for
ratification; final power still rests with Roundtable.
Wilkinson: question before us: do negotiations on a water project that may
involve 2 basins go on between roundtables or between the entities? Or do the
roundtables insert themselves so that roundtables become negotiators on the
project? Or are roundtables only there when asked?
Jerke: Are we empowered to take on that authority? Don't think so.
Wilkinson: Consensus is that roundtables concern themselves to facilitate and
add value to the process.
Rennels: I don't believe roundtable has any authority to assert themselves;
but it seems that the charge of the roundtables is to insert themselves when
helpful.
Metli: If water fi'om another basin was coming to the South Platte, the idea of
the Roundtables would be to be involved so that the focus is on a sharing of
values instead of a clashing oflawyers. If we understand each other's
challenges, we should be able to avoid fruitless fighting; is this not part of our
charge?
Jerke: Do we have right to insert or do we have to ask?
Knudsen: What if there were a consensus that roundtable wants to be part of
the process in any given project or negotiation?
Wilkinson: What that may do is to make it more difficult for a project
proponent. For example, Windy Gap proponent: a municipal sub district is
trying to work on agreement, then all of a sudden, roundtable wants to be part
of it; this can be worrisome. On the other hand, if there is an impasse, then
proponents and objectors would ask the roundtables to come in and help
facilitate getting the proponents and objectors past the log jam. But to say up
front that roundtables must be part of the process complicates.
Hecox: Per the voluntary nature of the process, if roundtables are to be
helpful, we need to think about how we can add value to what is happening.

5