My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10 Notes
CWCB
>
IBCC Process Program Material
>
Backfile
>
10 Notes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/15/2009 6:00:35 PM
Creation date
7/26/2007 1:49:40 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
IBCC Process Program Material
Title
Colorado’s Interbasin Compact Negotiations: Development of an Institutional Framework - Notes
Date
12/17/2004
Author
Russell George, Frank McNulty, Peter Nichols, Eric Hecox
IBCC - Doc Type
Program Planning, Budget & Contracts
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
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
Revised: 7/26/2007 <br /> <br />Need an inventory of E. and rec. needs <br />o <br /> <br />State can promote conservation on front range <br />o <br /> <br />SWSI has documented concerns – Can continue to provide a forum for <br />o <br />discussion <br /> <br />Watershed groups – SWSI has provided a watershed or basin forum <br />o <br /> <br />PA doctrine is adver sarial; need a parallel collaborative process <br />o <br /> <br />Roundtable reps is a good start on basin reps for the negotiations <br />o <br /> <br />Interbasin compacts can help provide some certainty <br />o <br /> <br />How create trust – helps to bring new players to the table; work on <br />o <br />funding issues; need ba sin of origin protection; need to look at values <br />(value of drying up ag vs drying up stream) econ value <br /> <br />Format of public comments is important – Power Point format hinders <br />o <br />public participation <br /> <br />Shouldn’t rush through transbasin discussions – need long - term and better <br />o <br />format <br /> <br />Need to address institutional barriers to efficiency (conservation) <br />o <br /> <br />Interbasin discussions: Need more than just mitigation; need to address <br />o <br />social/cultural impacts; compensatory storage is not an answer; need to <br />build trust first before d iscussions occur <br /> <br />Ideas on Compact Idea (from Karen) <br />? <br /> <br />Needs to be state wide (not basin to basin) <br />st <br />? <br /> <br />1 need follow - up on SWSI – public feedback and revision <br />? <br /> <br />Can’t be top up – have basins select people <br /> <br />Start with round tables and have roundtables select peopl e <br />o <br /> <br />Need federal representation <br />o <br />? <br /> <br />Model the process after the basin roundtables <br />? <br /> <br />Basin of origin protection <br /> <br />West slop doesn’t want a laundry list of what is required; front range does <br />o <br /> <br />Make flexible <br />o <br />? <br /> <br />If presented as how transbasin diversions are going to move for ward people won’t <br />participate; but if presented as how state is going to move forward and solve <br />problems (look at more than just transbasin diversions as solutions) <br /> <br />Look at a range of issues: retirement; ag efficiency; in - basin solutions <br />o <br />(identified in SWS I); transbasin w/ mitigation and enhansment; storage <br />enlargement; operating criteria (serve multiple needs) <br />? <br /> <br />Steering Committee can’t be appointed; must have some basin selection <br />? <br /> <br />Public Outreach – work with CO Water Ed. Foundation and citizen outreach <br />group s; also better website than SWSI had <br />? <br /> <br />Build as a branch of SWSI – State wide round table <br />? <br /> <br />Learn from what SWSI didn’t do in terms of public outreach <br />? <br /> <br />Gunnison and CO can address Compact issues as opposed to giving up water <br />through transbasin diversions <br /> <br />Could be modeled after watershed planning process <br /> <br />3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.