Laserfiche WebLink
David Robbins <br />11/30/04 <br /> <br />David generally thought the outlined institutional framework was “as good a way as any” <br />to pursue compact negotiations. Although he felt the structure was appropriate, he raised <br />a number of concerns regarding the negotiation proces s. His feedback highlighted a <br />number of problems the process may run into, but he felt there really is no other way to <br />address these statewide issues. <br /> <br />What brings people to the table? <br />David first questioned what would bring all the basins to the table. He noted that <br />negotiations are a process by which political entities give up some sovereignty because <br />they are going to gain something or they are afraid of losing something. What are basins <br />such as the Yampa, San Juan, and Rio Grande going to gain? In o rder to move forward <br />this needs to be thought through and people need to be convinced that their current <br />condition isn’t better than what might come out of a compact. <br /> <br />The western and eastern extremes of the state have a lot to lose and not a lot to gain by <br />engaging in the process. <br /> <br />Some solutions we discussed are: 1) the division of Colorado River shortages would <br />bring the Yampa and San Juan to the table; 2) limits on or mitigation for agricultural sell <br />off for transbasin diversions would interest the R io Grande; and 3) the Colorado basin <br />will want to participate because it currently has the large transbasin diversions and is <br />threatened with additional conditional rights. <br /> <br />David asked if we could set up a process that is not statewide. The Colorado main stem <br />and the front - range will have the biggest interest. This would avoid the problem of <br />having to convince the western and eastern extremes of the state they have something to <br />gain from the process. <br /> <br />How this is or will be addressed in proposed legislati on: <br />Entering compact negotiations is voluntary, so no basin will be forced to participate. <br />The Steering Committee is responsible for establishing a format for negotiations. <br />Presumably this will include what options are on the table. The options on the table are <br />what will either persuade or dissuade participation in the compact negotiations. The <br />Steering Committee with broad representation is set up to foster solutions to problems <br />such as these. <br /> <br />Interbasin negotiation will be more complex than inter state negotiations <br />States have the authority to negotiate compacts and come to binding agreements on <br />behalf of the citizens. State representatives can bind the citizens without direct citizen <br />consent. However, in an interbasin context there is not an au thority that can bind all <br />citizens in a basin. There will be lots of opportunity for litigation and obstruction as the <br />process moves forward. <br /> <br />1 <br />