IBCC Meeting Notes Feb 2 2007

• Title: Meeting Notes
• Date: 2/2/2007
• Interbasin CC - Doc Type: Meeting Notes

?
T. Wright Dickinson : As a state, we haven’t had a broad discussion of this information
before. This demonstrates the need for this process and we should let it play itself out.
To add to the list of questions Eric Kuhn suggested, I would add, “What are the intrastate
impacts of the Upper Basin Compact”? For example, if a compact call comes, and it is
determined that Colorado’s obligations will be met by curtailment of junior appropriators
within the state without regard to basin, t he fact that many of the rights in the
Yampa/White/Green Basin are junior to other rights within the state could mean that the
call would have a disproportionate impact on that area. I have a feeling the water rights
holders in Yampa would be vocal about their disapproval if that happened.

Pending CWCB Projects Bill

?
Rep. Kathleen Curry : The CWCB Projects bill currently at the Legislature provides
funding for a Colorado River water availability analysis. Does the CWCB have the lead
role in compact anal ysis? The bill will start in the House, then go to the Senate, and
because we don’t have another IBCC meeting until next month, it would be helpful to get
any input IBCC members have on the project bill and specifically the funding of a water
availability analysis today.

?
Rod Kuharich : Where the CWCB’s authorizing statute speaks to the Compact
specifically, we have a definite role. Where no role is specifically given, we’re required
to support those that do have a role. The Director of CWCB is the head of the Colorado
delegation, and the Upper Colorado River Compact identifies a role for the Colorado
commissioner.

?
Melinda Kassen : If the IBCC wants to provide some value in this process, can we do that
with the current wording of the legislation? Righ t now the line item says that CWCB will
work with the Roundtables. Could the IBCC help by engaging in dialogue with the
Roundtables, disseminating information, and asking the Roundtables to consider the
information we’ve heard today? Involving the IBCC m ight be a way to ensure some of
the discussion we’ve had today is considered in the process.

?
Eric Wilkinson : The current wording of the bill directs the CWCB and Roundtables to
work together in developing the scope of work for the study. This was an effo rt by
CWCB to ensure that Roundtables would be involved. If this line item goes through, the
funding will be available in July of 2007, and I am worried that if we wait, we won’t get
the funding until July of 2008. This study is too fundamental to delay, and offers an
opportunity to foster cooperation between the CWCB, the Roundtables and the IBCC. I
don’t think adding IBCC to the language would be outside the intent of the bill.

?
Bill Trampe : The Gunnison Roundtable feels strongly that the grassroots na ture of the
process should be preserved, and would oppose adding language that would specifically
involve the IBCC to the legislation.

?
Eric Hecox : Negotiating the scope of work for the study between the CWCB and several
Roundtables could become logistica lly difficult. Perhaps if the IBCC is in the language

13