Laserfiche WebLink
Dan Birch: We n eed to give Roundtables some leeway. Timeframes and impacts may be <br />different for diverse Roundtable s. For example , wa ter for energy needs from the west <br />sl ope, may be quite different depending on the time frame that is used – energy <br />development may not start in earnest until after 2030 . <br /> <br />Harris Sherman: If we don’t have a common tech nical platform , we will have <br />Roundtab les and needs assessments going in all different directions and the results may <br />not be comparable <br /> <br />Eric K uhn: We should go beyond 2030 because that is a reasonable time frame to get <br />projects that are in the planning stage now on line. <br /> <br />Harris Sherman: We n eed to ask consumptive and no n - consumptive work groups to <br />identify some of the issues where it would be desirable to have common methodologies. <br />Is this possible for the next meeting? <br /> <br />Sue Morea : We will get consumptive and non - consumptive working groups together. <br />These groups can provide frameworks for diverse Roundtables to use when addressing <br />these issues. West slope has been clear that 2050 is an appropriate planning horizon for <br />them. Might get into some of the policy issues you want to discuss as a part of that. <br /> <br />Harris Sherman: I s everyone comfortable with the 2 year time frame to get the needs <br />assessments done? <br /> <br />Stan Cazier: I n my part of the country, sooner is better. 2 years is a long time, but you <br />have to be realistic too. <br /> <br />Bill Trampe: Will there be funding available to assist Roundtables in finishing their needs <br />assessments? <br /> <br />Eric Hecox: Yes, funding is there, and it is being used in different ways with different <br />Roundtable s – in some , the 1400 money is being used to execute studies, in oth ers it is <br />being used to develop a work plan. Those resources are helping us find the most <br />appropriate way to move what Roundtable s want to do forward. <br /> <br />th <br />Harris Sherman: W hy don’t we move on to the 4 issue? Concurrent with needs assessment <br />work going on , I see the IBCC being very focused on the identification of multiple objective <br />solutions. Let me defin e what I mean by this phrase. It is i mportant that we as a group step back <br />from a focus on individual projects, and instead look at a broader set of is sues – what are we <br />trying to achieve in Colorado in terms of our use of water? What is important to us? How do we <br />take these various objectives, and bring them together to find a commonality of interests? In the <br />SWSI report, also on the front of the roa d map we handed out , is a list of objectives which I thi nk <br />we all try to bring to the t able when we think about water. Ho w do we take these in an object ive <br />sense and bring them together in a fashion that will work? Eric and Sue have tal ked with me <br />about a process they have to get us thinking about these interests. How you take these values, <br />compare and weight them, and bring them together in a way th at could really h elp the statewide <br /> 16 <br />