Laserfiche WebLink
Property rights interests will object to anything that appears to infringe upon property <br />rights. Conversely, the environmental community will be looking for a way to change <br />current allocations to benefit their interests. All of these positions will have to be dealt <br />with because there is not one entity that can bind everyone to a negotiated agreement. <br /> <br />The proc ess will also encounter a situation where the consistent participants are paid <br />consultants (lawyers, engineers, etc.) as well as individuals who have spare time and <br />resources. The key players will have little time to participate. In addition, the key <br />pla yers and the paid consultants are charged with protecting their interests. This will <br />make it difficult for participants to rise above parochial interests and seek statewide <br />solutions. <br /> <br />How this is or will be addressed in proposed legislation: <br />The curre nt legislation does not propose a binding mechanism during the negotiation <br />process, i.e. the compact negotiators will not have the same authority as a state does <br />during interstate negotiations. The binding mechanism is seen as coming in at the end of <br />the process through a referred amendment to the constitution. It is acknowledged that <br />this leaves the process open to obstruction along the way. The Steering Committee would <br />have the authority to pursue a binding mechanism during the negotiation process if they <br />found it necessary. <br /> <br />Although the involvement of divers interests such as property rights groups and <br />environmental organizations will slow the process down, it is necessary in order to foster <br />broad based support and stakeholder buy - in. The current d raft legislation encourages <br />public participation in the process. There are two mechanisms that address the problems <br />that come with broad participation. First, leadership will be of critical importance to <br />move the process forward and encourage people to s et aside their parochial interests. <br />Second, the proposed legislation explicitly directs the Steering Committee to provide <br />facilitators and/or neutral parties to help resolve conflict. <br /> <br />Will water quality be dealt with? <br />David noted that the first demand ma ny basins will make is that currently available water <br />is used as efficiently and effectively as possible. In many cases this will mean <br />wastewater reuse. Reverse osmosis (RO) will be required to make wastewater potable. <br />The brine resulting from RO poses a significant disposal problem. Also, water quality <br />limits the extent of agriculture to urban transfers. Municipalities will not be interested in <br />low quality water that requires extensive treatment while there are less expensive options <br />available. These types of issues will have to be on the table. <br /> <br />How this is or will be addressed in proposed legislation: <br />Water quality is not specifically addressed in the proposed legislation. The Steering <br />Committee will establish the framework for interbasin compact negotiations. The <br />Steering Committee will likely see the importance of addressing water quality and <br />include the necessary provisions. <br /> <br />2 <br />