IBCC Meeting Notes March 3rd

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

D R A F T
of the committee to create a process that worked. Members proposed that committee
discussion on roles should be open and not constrained too much by what was on the
page, as there would be opportunities to reconcile the legislation with the decisions of the
committee membership.

Others questioned the ability of the committee to adopt roles not expressly stated in the
legislation. Further discussion somewhat reconciled these two perspectives in favor of
flexible statements of roles that would allow the committee to be responsive to what
came from the roundtables, with some feeling that it is not practical to have a nar rowly
defined set of roles this early in the process.

?

Voluntary nature of the process: Throughout the discussion, members echoed earlier
comments on the voluntary nature of the entire basin roundtable and IBCC process,
emphasizing the need to create ince ntives and provide a positive environment that would
enable productive discussions between roundtables. Others stated that the IBCC must
prove itself to be a credible body in order for the process to go anywhere, with influence
dependent on whether the IB CC can offer an improvement over current processes.
Participants reinforced the notion that the IBCC can’t and shouldn’t force anyone to do
anything , but should seek to add value to the process, create boundaries, and tread lightly.

?

Need for a state visi on that starts from the basins: Several speakers viewed the
development of a shared, statewide vision for the future of water use in the state , based
on basin visions developed by roundtables, as a primary positive contribution which
could be made by the IBCC.

?

Need to overcome current obstacles: Participants identified lack of trust, lack of
information, and lack of resources as current obstacles to more collaborative water
discussions and agreements in Colorado. “Past history” emerged as a common reaso n
why some discussion s on water in the state are polarized. The group voiced support for
helping move beyond these obstacles through the work of the committee. Some stated
that mistrust would remain until the state as a whole could agree on a vision for Colorado
that includes commitment to an economic future for all regions.

During discussions, several proposals for draft language emerged. The group developed the
following list of tasks the IBCC could undertake :

?

Helping individual basin roundtable s dev elop visions for their basins , communicating
those across basins, and from that, to develop a common vision for the State of Colorado ;
?

Overcoming past history and mistrust, and developing ownership of a common vision by
the basins and their roundtables ;
?

Cr eating the atmosphere and an enabling environment that enables parties to negotiate
together effectively;
?

Assisting in identifying and obtaining resources needed to promote basin and interbasin
deliberations and negotiations;
?

Developing principles, standar ds, and criteria to guide negotiations and which might be
applied when approving agreements ;
5