Laserfiche WebLink
that you need to help us solve is that this bill is going to go thr ough soon and all of this <br />money CWCB will have is for the sort of things that we had talked about doing in our <br />Charter. To avoid duplication, either the CWCB should do these studies, or the IBCC <br />should do them, but not both. One thing the IBCC has going for it is that we haven’t <br />made too many people mad. A number of communities are still very skeptical of CWCB <br />as an honest broker. When the recreational community sees $150,000 in the projects bill <br />for CWCB to “evaluate” recreational water use, they get w orried. CWCB may think that <br />the only way to prove they can be objective is do a study, but the recreational community <br />doesn’t think they can do that. If the bill goes through, and the CWCB gets funding for <br />these studies, what is the role of the IBCC? We have a statutory obligation to do <br />interstate compacts, but I don’t see any on the horizon. Our only other obligation is to <br />public education, but I question whether we have a meaningful role if CWCB does all of <br />this other stuff. And if they do the study, how do you convince various interests that <br />they’re unbiased? <br /> <br />? <br /> Rita Crumpton: O ne thing we need to decide: this process w as set up to be voluntary. <br />The projects bill repres e nts the Legislative response to constituents – they came forward <br />voluntarily with the idea for the proposed study . So is this going to continue to be a <br />voluntary process, or do we want to exercise more control? <br /> <br />? <br /> Dan McAuliffe , Deputy Director, CWCB: M any members of the IBCC are either past or <br />present members of the CWCB. At the same time that the General Assembly passed <br />House Bill 1177 and House Bill 1400 to fund this process, they also created a new <br />section within the CWCB to continue SWSI and to address Colorado ’s future water <br />resource challeng es . The CWCB was directed in legislation to support the IBCC process. <br />Deleted: <br />directed in <br />At some point, the conversation needs to include both entities. At eve ry CWCB meeting, <br />Deleted: to support <br />they now want to hear a report from the IBCC process, and want to have that ongoing <br />relationship. There are s om e things the IBCC can do well, and some things the CWCB <br />can do well. Where do those come together? Because the Governor makes appointments <br />to both entities, the cabinet transition gives us an opportunity to work on any relationship <br />issues . <br /> <br />? <br /> Eric Kuhn ( General Manager, Colorado River Water Conservation District): When the <br />1177 process began, our board approached the concept with some questioning and <br />accepted it with deference to Russ George. Our approach since has been to actively <br />engage both the IBCC and the CWCB. If we’re going to be a part of the policy making <br />process addressing things like water supply for the Front Range and protection of <br />Deleted: front range <br />recreation and environmental interests , we want to do it in a transparent way and through <br />the R ound tables because they represent the stakeholders in those areas – cities, counties, <br />etc. <br /> <br />? <br /> Bill Trampe: The Gunnison approached the process with some skepticism in the <br />beginning, and many thought it was just another way to get water for the F ront R ange. <br />T he river district gave deference to Russ, some of us thought it might be our last chance <br />to have a say in how things develop. Transparency in the relationship between the <br />CWCB and the IBCC is critical, as is maintaining the grassroots nature of the proces s. <br /> <br />4 <br />