Laserfiche WebLink
Jeris Danielson: I understand the sensitivity between West Slope basins, given that we <br />are a prior appropriation state. If you stand out west at La Junta, the first question you <br />want to know is how much does Colo rado have left under its allocation above Lee’s <br />Ferry. Then you can do some sensitivity analysis. Don’t think I care how it is allocated <br />between our internal basins. <br /> <br />T. Wright Dickinson: We should look at groundwater availability as well. I understan d <br />the legislation focused on Colorado, but we have to look at all of the supply. At some <br />point in time we need to have a more thoughtful conversation about the last bullet point. <br />The IBCC process provides an opportunity for everyone to get their cards up on the table <br />where everyone can see them. More information is good, but can also create mischief. <br />We need to make sure we set our intention for using the data that is created in a positive <br />way. Either non - consumptive or energy needs can spiral off into something <br />unproductive. We need to tell folks not to let enthusiasm take us in the wrong direction. <br /> <br />Daryl Steele: I disagree with Jeris a little bit. We need to know where the water the state <br />has is at, because if it is in a given location, and has to be taken somewhere else, that is a <br />critical piece of data. If some basin is short, and one has availability, we need to know <br />that information. <br /> <br />Eric Wilkinson: The state needs to step through an objective look at the data and try to <br />get politics out of it. We need to look at what we have, what we have left over, and what <br />to do. We have to do a robust, basin - by - basin look at supply side. It must be a very <br />detailed analysis. Then the next step is to look at current uses, because there is historic <br />reli ance in the state on those current uses. We can also be doing other studies on a <br />parallel basis. The results of the study needs to systematically and analytically tell us <br />where we are, under various scenarios. <br /> <br />(Moving on to next two slides that examin e technical issues.) <br /> <br />Dan McAuliffe: Are there things that we should take into account when we start this <br />study? We want to avoid future arguments about adequacy of data or sources that have <br />been used, by being complete and thoughtful up front. If there is a source of data we <br />won’t be using, we want to be clear about that. One luxury we have is that we don’t have <br />a deadline. Our belief is that this will be the first in a progression of efforts. <br /> <br />Randy S eaholm: I think that what I heard from earlier dis cussion is that you want to look <br />at supply – what would be available if there were no current uses? What do those <br />supplies look like considering current uses? What do we want to look at as far as <br />variability and risk? We also need to look at other issue s – ESA, etc. How deep into the <br />actual uses do we want to go? Do we want to look at conditional uses and conditional <br />rights? Look at probability of those being filled? These are all just thoughts, and w hat <br />we would like is your input. <br /> <br />Eric Kuhn: I w ould hope we stay away from analyzing individual water rights – water <br />right by water right. You should focus on demands rathe r than who has what water right, <br /> 7 <br />