Laserfiche WebLink
Mike Shimmin: M aybe we sh ould consider writing this into the criteria and guidelines? I <br />personally don’t want to review every one of these applications . However, i f a smaller <br />group of them raise larger pub lic policy issues, I would be willing to look at those . <br />Writing separatin g criteria might be challenging, but we should do it . Perhaps this should <br />be a topic for another IBCC meeting? <br /> <br />Harris Sherman : U ltimately this is a decision before the CWCB , and the IBCC would be <br />making recommendations that CWCB would take very seriously . <br /> <br />Doug Scott: Is the CWCB looking at statewide applications only twice a year? We could <br />schedule our meeting right before the CWCB meeting in those months, and we could <br />review the applications that need our input. In fact, Rick could present to both gro ups <br />together . We’re not going make the go/no - go decisions – we’re providing revie w. I <br />wou ld be happy to devote two of our meetings each year to hearing what people have <br />applied for. <br /> <br />Rick Brown: I think that out of this last round, three applications w ould fall into the <br />category of those that raise broader policy issues. The way I handled them was to do <br />outreach. Having broader input was certainly welcome. The Yampa and Colorado <br />energy needs assessment is one example. Some other projects affected ex isting vested <br />water rights . These two raise a larger question, how do you figure out what should <br />trigger further review and recommendations to address policy issues ? <br /> <br />Eric K uhn: I think maybe this is a way the IBCC could help you. If a project could <br />a ffect a water right, I imagine you would want input from lots of people. Probably all of <br />the energy companies have their own conditional water rights. Putting this on you or any <br />small group is an awfully tough issue. There isn’t just one answer to what affecting a <br />water right means. <br /> <br />Melinda Kassen: P art of this discussion goes back to the IBCC C harter . Either some <br />i ndividual applications or some groups of applications will raise those kinds of issues, <br />and whether it is formally or informally, that is the kind of thing we’re sup posed to be <br />talking about. Applications are due 60 days before the CWCB meets. Eric and R ick <br />could give us brief info rmation on those received . Some may be cases we want to talk <br />about and others that we don’t. The way the ap plication system has been set up p rovides <br />time for us to have conversation s before the CWCB meets. <br /> <br />Dan McAuliffe: Within CWCB, we are well equipped to deal with the current workload, <br />but the delay occurs within the DNR ’s purchasing department where there is only one <br />person processing these grants. If individual reviews based on state fiscal requirements <br />are triggered, the one purchasing person will not be able to handle the workload . If you <br />know about a complicated application coming up that the IBCC may want to address, this <br />is the perfect opportunity for us to engage . <br /> <br />I also th ink you have to review the criteria on annual basis , as well . CWCB activity will <br />be reviewed every five years. The Board was not going to substitute it s judgment for the <br /> 13 <br />