Laserfiche WebLink
Dan McAuliffe and Randy S eaholm (CWCB): We will begin scoping for the study and <br />contract over the next month or so, and be able to execute the contra ct for the work over <br />the summer . First is a process question – Will we do the study in phases? Will the work <br />be subsumed in one gigantic procurement? The second set of issues is technical . What <br />resources out there d o we need to include or address? What is the baseline? What are the <br />technical resources we need to take into account to do a thorough job? Third, what are <br />the issues that the state wants us to address when they funded this study? <br /> <br />We would like to ha v e a dialogue about some of the process issues first . <br /> <br />Eric K uhn: The study should be done in phases and the focus should be on the supply <br />side. Four Roundtables and the Front Range are connected on the supply issue. <br />Independently, they’re looking at th eir needs, but supply issues are what connect them. <br />This is especially the case to the extent that resources for the state or specific geographic <br />areas are pulled away from basin needs assessments. If this study doesn’t get the supply <br />side right, then de mand efforts will be flawed to begin with. <br /> <br />Jeris D anielson: I really endorse what Eric is saying. The Arkansas Roundtable is <br />engaged in a constant reassessment of basin needs. T hese are a moving target as different <br />developments come on board. We need to know – “how much water is there?” Simple <br />question, “If you don’t know how much is available, how to you select or reject needs?” <br /> <br />T. Wright Dickinson: I would appreciate a little more on the big picture from Dan before <br />we get into the details of proces s. <br /> <br />Dan McAuliffe: One of the reasons we’re here today is that we don’t w ant to get the <br />questions we’re asking wrong. We want to make sure we’re taking into account what <br />you as IBCC members are concerned about. We w ant to make sure what we produce is <br />useful. <br /> <br />Randy Seaholm: We could look at supply as what would be available on natural basis – <br />un depleted , unregulated. We could also look at how demands and uses in the Lower <br />Basin affect what is available in the Upper Basin. We could also look at how much of <br />the supply should be available in each one of the major Colorado River basins that <br />contribute to the river. Where we start is going to give us different answers. We do have <br />certain budgetary limits. That is some of the discussion we’d like feedb ack on. <br /> <br />Melinda Kassen: I agree that supply side is probably the best place to start. It will be <br />important not to have just a gross number. We need to know where the water is, which <br />tributary, where in the tribut ary and when it is available? We have a natural hydrograph <br />that produces more water during the spring. Satisfying existing development, new <br />development, non - consumptive needs and compact issues are important. <br /> <br />Eric Kuhn: The fundamental issue that’s missing is the relationship of supply to ri sk. <br />There is not one answer to how much water is available. The answer is dependent on <br />risk , and on reaching a consensus on what we mean by risk. There is this much water at <br /> 5 <br />