Laserfiche WebLink
right that the data is difficult. What bothers me is that everything is pointing in the same <br />directi on, which is a drier future. If we don’t include that, the results of the study could <br />be rejected immediately as being out of date and not relevant. <br /> <br />Harris Sherman: Do you want to look at going through 2050 as opposed to 2030? Are <br />we being short sigh ted if we limit the duration? <br /> <br />Peter Binney: Projects take between 5 to 10 years. We know about compact issues. <br />Although they are less defined, they are still real. We can go to 2030 with those. If we <br />go out to 2050, we need to look at policies. I can appreciate that the future is going to be <br />different, but how will we be managing in 2050? <br /> <br />Dan McAuliffe: What we’ll do is work internally, take notes from this meeting to our <br />Board and discuss them with them. We will come back to you in July or August with a <br />time frame, and to check with you on the outline we’re putting together for the scope, <br />before we take that scope out to the Basin Roundtables. Before we break, do any of our <br />internal team members have any areas where they need clarification? <br /> <br />Harr is Sherman: It’s going to be critical for us to get back to the IBCC with a detailed <br />study outline. I am m indful of Eric’s comment that if we come up with a study no one <br />has confidence in, then we’ve done nothing. There is a lot of detail here we haven’t yet <br />gotten input on. The best way to do that is for CWCB to come up with an outline, and for <br />us to have another session on this topic. <br /> <br />Chris Moore: If you have other thoughts that come up, send that to CWCB. Also, if <br />CWCB has places they need input, can send out to us. <br /> <br />Jeris Danielson: The most valuable way to deal with this issue i s to talk about it face to <br />face. When we interact, we get a sense of where we are headed. Right now, we’ll deal <br />with this issue if it takes us a year. State government has to make a decision, ultimately, <br />about whether there is any unallocated water. There are several folks here that would say <br />“there ain’t none left”. I think we need to take all of the time it takes to iron these issues <br />out in person. Let’s talk over the big issues. <br /> <br />Harris Sherman: Rod and Dan, is there a way to get an outline in the next three weeks, <br />something much more specific, that we can send out to the group, and ask for feedback <br />before the June 19 meeting; and at the June 19 meeting we conti nue this discussion? I <br />agree with Jeris that this deserves a lot of attention. Is it possible? <br /> <br />Rick Brown: In the legislation, we have a very firm commitment to the Roundtables, and <br />we haven’t yet engaged them at this level of dialog. How do we go abou t that? Engage <br />each in a series of briefings? Make working group from series of roundtables? I’m <br />worried that if we have a draft before we’ve talked with the Roundtables that could be <br />problematic. <br /> <br /> 9 <br />