My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
IBCC Meeting Notes May 9 2007
CWCB
>
Interbasin Compact Committee
>
Backfile
>
IBCC Meeting Notes May 9 2007
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/15/2009 11:55:22 AM
Creation date
7/26/2007 3:01:04 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Interbasin Compact Committee
Title
Meeting Notes
Date
5/9/2007
Interbasin CC - Doc Type
Meeting Notes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
18
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
Dan McAuliffe: I think we need to wait and see if we can get a tentative consensus on <br />approach before we go out to Roundtables. I think that it is possible for us to layout what <br />we think we can accomplish, how long it will take, how much it will cost, basic <br />assumptions – brief, but something for you to sink your teeth into. Then we can flesh it <br />out more, and what we wind up with is a document around which we can engage the <br />Roundtables. This will give them something substantive to respond to. <br /> <br />Randy Seaholm: I think we could put a supply - focused outline t ogether – natural flow, <br />bui lding sensitivity for change into the analysis, and start to outline some of the compact <br />issues . Maybe that’s as far as we go. <br /> <br />Rod Kuharich: (In response to a question) If a shortage ever occurs, the Colorado <br />Compact Commission ers will come together and decide how much of the shortage each <br />state has to bear. <br /> <br />Harris Sherman: I would like to ask Senator Isgar and Representative Curry for their <br />reaction to what they have heard from our discussions today. <br /> <br />Jim Isga r: I’m comfor table with what I have heard. I think some of the ideas raised will <br />get us there, and we don’t need to belabor them. <br /> <br />Kathleen Curry : I think this fits well so far with the intent of the legislation. I feel the <br />pain of Rick when he asked how we should e ngage the Roundtables in this process. <br />However, this is exactly what I hoped for as far as where we would be headed. <br /> <br />Ken Knox from the State Engineer’s Office (SEO) then made a presentation on how the State <br />Engineer is approaching the question of how C olorado would react to a compact call. His <br />presentation (available separately on the website) , and the subsequent group discussion, are <br />summarized below: <br /> <br />Ken Knox: What do we do if there is a call? We’ve been working on this for quite some <br />time. It’ s an issue that must be dealt with carefully, thoughtfully, and in a transparent <br />manner. Our focus is on protecting the water users. The State Engineer’s office is <br />working with the Attorney General’s Office to define the question. My presentation <br />outlin es methods that may be out there – priority system, proportional reduction, <br />preference for beneficial use, special considerations. At this time the State Engineer is <br />not advocating for any one of these. <br /> <br />Another question is what date we should use when w e consider the meaning of “present <br />perfected right”? We have examined and analyzed the legal issues, including <br />responsibilities of the Upper Colorado River Commission. There is no basin in the State <br />of Colorado that is not affected by these curtailment r ules. 16 months ago, we looked at <br />if there was a compact call, could we even figure out how many water rights we have in <br />these basins? Our sister states all tried to do this, and only Colorado was able to <br />accomplish the task. We used the Colorado Decisi on Support System, which is not static. <br />We’re constantly adding data. <br /> 10 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.