My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
4 Chris Treese - 12-2
CWCB
>
IBCC Process Program Material
>
Backfile
>
4 Chris Treese - 12-2
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/15/2009 6:00:48 PM
Creation date
7/26/2007 2:14:25 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
IBCC Process Program Material
Title
Colorado’s Interbasin Compact Negotiations: Development of an Institutional Framework - Chris Treese
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.
/
3
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
Chris reiterated his feelings that intrabasin discussions need to continue. He noted that <br />there are significant with - in basin issues that need to be addressed. In some instances <br />there may need to be within basin compacts /contracts/agreements. This is particularly <br />true on the west slope where the division of Colorado River shortages is a large issue. <br /> <br />How this is or will be addressed in proposed legislation: <br />The current legislation formalizes the basin roundtables. Bes ides selecting Steering <br />Committee members, these roundtables will have the role of providing a forum for on - <br />going basin collaboration. Some basins may decide they want to engage in a formal <br />basin planning effort that results in institutionalized agreement s. Other basins may want <br />to have more informal discussions and collaboration. It will be up to the basins, but the <br />proposed institutional framework allows for this type of with - in basin dialogue. <br /> <br />The issues with division of the Colorado River shortages would be dealt with in the <br />interbasin compact negotiations. It would up to the Steering Committee, but this is <br />certainly something that would need to be on the table during interbasin negotiations. <br /> <br />Basin Negotiations <br />Chris has a real concern with the Dir ector appointing the basin negotiators. Either the <br />Steering Committee should have that authority, or the basins should choose them directly <br /> <br />How this is or will be addressed in proposed legislation: <br />Because the personalities involved in the negotiations are critical, we decided to have the <br />Director select the negotiators with input from the Steering Committee. This certainly <br />gives it a top down feel and may need to be changed. <br /> <br />Decision Rules <br />If the legislation is going to mandate the Steering Committee operate by consensus, then <br />consensus needs to be defined. Chris thought a better approach is to not legislate the <br />decision rules, but allow the Steering Committee to decide upon their own decision rules. <br /> <br />Voluntary Basin Participation <br />Chris asked if we h ave thought through what happens if some basins decide not to <br />participate. <br /> <br />How this is or will be addressed in proposed legislation: <br />Enter into compact negotiations must be voluntary. It is hoped that the Steering <br />Committee will structure the negotia tion framework in such a way as to encourage all <br />basins to participate. It is also anticipated that strong leadership will encourage basins <br />to participate and reveal the concerns that are preventing them from participating. <br /> <br />Public Education <br />Chris felt th at coordination with the Colorado Water Education Foundation should not be <br />mandatory. He noted that some of the public education and outreach of this process <br />might have an agenda that is at odds with the Foundations mission. He feels it is <br />2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.