Laserfiche WebLink
this group could provide on these issues. I ask that we do consider discussing issues that <br />have policy implications, which Rick could bring to us. If we don’t discuss these issues , <br />we are wasting th e horsepower in this room. <br /> <br />Jeris Danielson: I would hope that our discussions of policy issues do not have to be <br />triggered by an application. We need to be more proactive. Regarding staffing, I’m not <br />sure we need a n additional person at this time. G ive Roundtables a good standardized <br />application form and make Roundtables do the work. If we need a person, they should <br />probably be under Eric, because he goes to all the Roundtable meetings. <br /> <br />Harris Sherman: We do not have a consensus on this issue. Eri c and I will take it back, <br />develop something and get it back to you. Where we do agree: Need clearer application <br />process, assistance to Roundtables, IBCC should be involved in review and formulation <br />of criteria (we’ll develop recommendations), and if issu es that are “big important policy <br />issues” come up, we should discuss them. Give Eric and me a chance to formulate a <br />proposal, and then we can discuss these issues at our next meeting. <br /> <br />Harris Sherman: Let’s continue on and talk about the needs assessment process. I do not have <br />much to add to what Eric has said, but we need a common framework that can be used by all <br />Roundtables that allow s us to make comparisons. I support and recommend <br />establishing/ maintaining the statewide consumptive and non - consumpti ve workgroups. We n eed <br />the ir help to assist Roundtables, wh ich need to complete their needs assessments in the next two <br />years. The IBCC needs to provide assistance to workgroups and Roundtables to keep them on <br />this schedule, and w e need your commitment. <br /> <br />Mike Shimmin: We need to define what we mean by a “common technical platform . ” We <br />need to id entify where non - comparable components are showing up so that we can get <br />them aligned. For example , are we p rojecting needs to 2030 or 2050? How do we deal <br />with the tension between bottom - up decisions and the need for comm on statewide <br />technical platform? Where are basins doing thin gs really differently? We need to discuss <br />some of these issues of commonality before needs assessments are completed. This topic <br />s h ould be on next meeting’s agenda. <br /> <br />Eric Hecox : We p robably need a common planning horizon, so that we know what <br />periods of record (history) to use in develop ing common planning scenarios. On the non - <br />consumptive side, we need a common approach that can be tailored to the needs of the <br />individual basins. They all need to go through the same common steps. Rick has <br />wrestled with thi s to develop SWSI studies. We should use a common group that has <br />addressed this issue, and learn from their insights. <br /> <br />Rick Brow n: Another question – s hould we separate out domestic, industrial and <br />commercial uses ? How do you deal with maximum daily us e that may vary because of <br />year - round use or use only part of a year? How do you calculate ag ricultural shortages – <br />in hydrologica l years or over a three month time frame , when irrigation is only for a few <br />months and h aying is going on during others? <br /> <br /> 15 <br />