My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
4 Eric Wilkinson - 12-3
CWCB
>
IBCC Process Program Material
>
Backfile
>
4 Eric Wilkinson - 12-3
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/15/2009 6:00:48 PM
Creation date
7/26/2007 2:11:30 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
IBCC Process Program Material
Title
Colorado’s Interbasin Compact Negotiations: Development of an Institutional Framework - Eric Wilkinson
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.
/
2
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
they will be bett er off under a consensus based negotiation process rather than a legislative <br />process. <br /> <br />Process Not Moving Forward <br />Eric raised the point that credibility is on the line if this structure is set up and then does not go <br />anywhere. Setting up the structure w e have proposed will take effort and investment of political <br />capital. If the structure is set up and then it does not go anywhere someone could end up with <br />“egg on their face.” <br /> <br />Constitutional Amendment <br />Eric noted that the agreements reached through the C ompact Negotiations might not necessarily <br />require or benefit from a constitutional amendment. A constitutional amendment might very <br />well be the most appropriate end product. However, as with other aspects of the framework we <br />have outline it might not be wise to presume a constitutional amendment will be the result. The <br />final ratification may be different based upon the agreements reached. <br /> <br />Additional Comments <br />Eric made the following additional observations: <br />? <br /> <br />The legislation will need to define authorities , powers, and obligations of the Steering <br />Committee <br />? <br /> <br />When specifying the interests/agencies to be represented on the Steering Committee, the <br />legislature and water courts should be removed, and industry should be added. Also the <br />Steering Committee should no t include any Federal Government representation. The Feds <br />will have to be involved, but should not be members of a consensus based Steering <br />Committee. <br />? <br /> <br />When talking of within basin collaboration the mentioning of watershed management <br />indicates water qualit y issues. That may or may not be the intent, but that is the perception <br />the term raises. <br />? <br /> <br />It may be interesting to see how project proponents react to this framework. Some project <br />proponents might not want such an open and public process. <br />? <br /> <br />Eric had some tr ouble understanding the basic structure from the material we sent him. Once <br />we talked about it, he understood it better. Hopefully this have been taken care of with the <br />re - writing of the Institutional Framework document. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.