Laserfiche WebLink
<br />? <br /> Marc Catlin : It t akes a certain amoun t of time to develop trust between people before <br />they feel comfortable or safe discussing how they feel . You’d think locally that wouldn ’t <br />take much time, but it may be the hardest part – knowing everyone and figuring out <br />where we can find middle ground , and what things are sacred . This group is a great <br />opportunity for us to learn some things about how to build that trust and how to run our <br />R oundtables. N ow it’s going to come back to you (referring to Harris Sherman) – it will <br />take a little bit of time t o learn about you and trust you, and when we go home an d are <br />able to say that the new D irec tor would like to see this process work that will help, <br />because everybody is hoping that this will work. No one is trying to sabotage or be less <br />than forthright. I t m ay take us a while, longer than we want , but I think it has a chance of <br />working. <br /> <br />? <br /> John Porter : This is a grassroots effort, and it came about because of the failure of <br />Referendum A . Anybody that thinks they are a stakeholder is a stakeholder. This <br />pr ocess starts at the grassroots, and it is long and slow, but we have to give it a try. Now, <br />we are j ust to the point where we’re beginning to see applications come in for use of the <br />Senate Bill 179 money. I t m ay take a while for us and the Colorado Water Conservation <br />Board (CWCB) t o figure out priorities and the best way to utilize and implement the <br />program . <br /> <br />? <br /> Rep. Kathleen Curry: A lack of clarity in division of labor has raised its head with regard <br />to the projects bill. We need to make sure cooperation between CWCB and the 1177 <br />process is working, and that one doesn’t get ahead of the other. The Legislature still feels <br />there are members that need to be brought into this dialogue. I’m concerned with the <br />process, not the specific study that was proposed as a part of the projects bill. We need to <br />stress that the process is supposed to work from the ground up. The precedent we set in <br />the Capito l this year on that will be important for other studies. <br /> <br />? <br /> Eric Wilkinson: When issues come up that are of int erest to the entire state, the IBCC <br />needs to receive information from the Roundtables. How we go about conducting needs <br />assessments needs to be resolved on a statewide basis. SWSI was able to look at <br />statewide issues using a common framework. A key role o f the IBCC is to take feedback <br />Deleted: key rol e <br />from Roundtables and incorporate it into the discussion . Roundtables feed the process, <br />but I would like us all to recognize that there has to be a common denominator – a <br />common technical platform, common criteria – and it is the role of this group to fin d that <br />with input from R oundtables. <br /> <br />Question 2: Are the state agencies traditionally involved in water issues and the IBCC and <br />Roundtables working well together, at both policy and staff levels? Are we coordina ting our <br />work at a staff level to avoid duplication? Looking at the right statewide issues? <br /> <br />? <br /> Melinda Kassen: CWCB and IBCC worked well together to develop the criteria and <br />guidelines for use of SB 179 funds. I think issues in terms of coordina tion between the <br />Deleted: issues in <br />CWCB and IBCC is coming. If I look at the CWCB projects bill, I see one million <br />dollars for studies of things like the value of non - consumptive uses. I think the problem <br /> <br />3 <br />