My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
IBCC Meeting Notes Feb 2 2007
CWCB
>
Interbasin Compact Committee
>
Backfile
>
IBCC Meeting Notes Feb 2 2007
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/15/2009 11:55:16 AM
Creation date
7/26/2007 3:13:15 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Interbasin Compact Committee
Title
Meeting Notes
Date
2/2/2007
Interbasin CC - Doc Type
Meeting Notes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Can determining State policy regarding a compact call be a d emocratic process? Would <br />that compromise our negotiating position as a state? Input from the Roundtables on how <br />various administrative choices, such as proportional curtailment based on flow from each <br />sub - basin, could impact them might be useful. Howeve r, ultimately the decision on how <br />to administer a compact call is a policy decision that must be made by the State of <br />Colorado. <br /> <br />? <br /> Ray Wright : In my view, the answer to the question “is the [hydrological] future going to <br />look like the past” is “no.” In th e Rio Grande valley, we are coming to terms with an <br />unsustainable level of well pumping that has gone on for 30 years, and provided a big <br />boost to the valley’s economy during those years. Future decisions should take into <br />account risk factors when maximiz ing benefit. <br /> <br />? <br /> Eric Kuhn : HB 1177 asks roundtables to do a needs assessment, and also an assessment <br />of unappropriated water in their basin. How are the basins that are part of the Colorado <br />River Basin supposed to do that? The process that Eric Wilkins on suggested makes sense <br />– we could take the time to get buy - in from the roundtables, which may mean that the <br />study doesn’t get funded this year, but can be done in a way that supports the roundtable <br />process. <br /> <br />Firm Yield vs. Average Yield <br /> <br />? <br /> Melinda Kassen : In the Constitution, what is the distinction between firm yield and <br />average yield? On the Rio Grande, junior users can appropriate water, but they must <br />augment seniors against any future impacts to those water rights. It sounds like the <br />development on the Colorado we’re discussing is “new water” but how do we protect the <br />seniors? <br /> <br />? <br /> Eric Kuhn : The 602a water held in storage protects future uses by ensuring that enough <br />water is available to keep the 10 - year moving average where it needs to be. We need to <br />avoid the mistakes we’ve made in other basins. The best example is on the South Platte, <br />where junior appropriators using groundwater had to shut down, with economic impacts <br />to those families and communities. New projects must find financing, and financie rs will <br />want to know that the water is available. In addition, the people who will be paying the <br />assessments to repay the loan must also buy into the project. <br /> <br />? <br /> Rod Kuharich : This is a sensitive issue. If we don’t allow people to appropriate <br />available wa ter, is that premature curtailment? The Supreme Court has also addressed <br />this issue. If you build a project and no water comes, the investors lose; but if water does <br />come, the whole state wins that is the risk of over - development. <br />Deleted: <br /> <br /> <br />Deleted: <br />That <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Administrat ion of a Compact Call <br /> <br /> <br />12 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.