My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
South Platte 1-31-06 minutes
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
Backfile
>
South Platte 1-31-06 minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 4:17:43 PM
Creation date
7/18/2007 10:50:26 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Basin Roundtables
Basin Roundtable
South Platte
Title
Minutes
Date
1/31/2006
Basin Roundtables - Doc Type
Minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />water basins. Thus, what are we really trying to do here? Are we really talking <br />about compacts at all? Maybe not. The statute uses this word but the law does <br />not allow that. Per projects being developed: the roundtable per se will not be the <br />developer, the projects will be developed by water users. So how to deal with the <br />tension between what we come to do, and what will actually happen? <br />DNR, CSU... what will they bring to the IBCC to help us figure out how to <br />connect a basin wide planning process with the fact that roundtables do not build <br />projects. <br />--Bill J: See handout entitled: South Platte Roundtable January 31,2006: <br />Questions designed to provide our IBCC delegates with direction on shared <br />values: <br />Attention is directed to question no. 2: <br />2) Does the South Platte roundtable SUPPOlt the idea of trans basin <br />diversions as one mechanism to help fill the projected gap in our basin? <br />Bill Brown: Idea of significant transbasin is remote, but supports idea. <br />Lisa Darling: Problem is that some of the projects on the drawing board <br />are in competition; SWSI tried to not advocate one project against another, <br />tension. <br />Bill J: Can we at least talk about unappropriated waters in the state? <br />Question no. 3: <br />3) If the South Platte Roundtable supports transbasin diversions should <br />that SUPPOlt be conditional upon mitigation to the exporting basin? <br />Bmce: How do we make it politically possible for this to make it remotely <br />possible on the other side? <br />Steve Simms: Question 5 goes hand in hand with question 3: <br />5) Should mitigation be the same for waters previously put to beneficial <br />use as they would be for previously unappropriated waters? <br />Bill Brown: nothing in Colorado water law says we need to mitigate; we <br />must focus on mitigation. Seems like only reality to transbasin diversion, <br />mitigation is a must. <br />Steve Spann: Needs of community, uses, and long term impact on <br />community important to see. <br />Harold: All water going to go grow grass is concern: Highlands <br />Ranch.. .not much grass there. Fundamental misconceptions that we have <br />about each other. If we want to come to any solutions, we must <br />understand each other's context. Information gap exists that we need to <br />close. <br />John: mitigation: context is drought. Another drought will cause east slope <br />to take the water. <br />----: conservation question: how efficient is agricultural using water; here, <br />how efficient is metro area in using water; how do you verify and <br />ascertain that each basin is being efficient. <br />Bill: It would be useful to have a presentation on how the alluvial system <br />works in the South Platte Basin; this would be especially valuable if we <br />were to couple this with a presentation on augmentation. <br /> <br />5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.