IBCC Meeting Notes March 3rd

• Title: Meeting Notes
• Date: 3/3/2006
• Interbasin CC - Doc Type: Meeting Notes

D R A F T
meeting, and received committee concurrence that the form and content of the notes met with
expectations.

Discussion of Public Participation

The committee reviewed various options for public participation in IBCC meetings, and decided
to in vite comments from members of the public at the end of each meeting, prior to making any
formal decisions and at other times subject to the discretion of the Director of Compact
Negotiations. Draft agendas for future meetings will indicate when ever possib le where in the
agenda public comment will be invited , to make it easier for interested observers to be present
when there is an opportunity for comment.

Discussion of Charter Elements

Several roundtables and IBCC representatives provided written input on the draft Charter
rd
submitted for the group’s consideration at the February 3 meeting. The facilitation team
combined these comments with those received during discussion at the first meeting, and input
gathered through interviews with representatives conducted by CSU prior to that meeting .

Four areas emerged as focus points for the first charter discussion – roles, decision making,
negotiating parties and final agreements. The c ommittee agreed to review the four sections of the
charter – Sections I V, V, VI, and VIII – looking at areas of agreement, suggested changes, and
outstanding questions. However, due to time constraints, only three areas were discussed , and
the committee did not spend time discussing final agreements as specified in Section V III:
Agreements between Roundtables . Major points of discussion are summarized below by section .

Role of the IBCC – Section IV : Roles of the Committee

The committee began discussion on the role(s) of the IBCC by focusing on the six roles
articulated i n the draft charter.

1. Facilitate the process of interbasin compact negotiations;

2. Serve as the forum for state wide water negotiations;

3. Assess recommendations from the roundtables for meeting water needs;

4. Coordinate a common technical platform upon which n egotiations will be based;

5. Determine the scope of work for the Working Groups and the IBCC ;

6. Review proposals and recommendations developed by the Working Groups

Members concurred on the need for the roles to be responsive to the legislative mandate, provi de
flexibility, and emphasize the grass - roots nature of the process. Wide support also existed for a
role for the IBCC in fostering an environment of information sharing and education.

Other elements of discussion:

?

Legislative intent: Several members i nvolved in the drafting of the legislation which
created the IBCC emphasized the law’s intent to provide latitude to the selected members
4