Laserfiche WebLink
<br />? <br /> Jenny Russell: The IBCC should not become an arm of the CWCB. We need to be <br />careful about appearances as well – for example, there are many CWCB staff members <br />around the table today, and even though they are here because of the discussion about <br />Col orado River issues we’ll have later, I’m concerned about how that looks. <br /> <br />? <br /> Wayne Vanderschuere: The challenge before us is to find the strengths in what the IBCC <br />brings, and in what the CWCB brings. We need to get past the easy stuff and move on to <br />the hard stuff, and I agree with Jenny that we wouldn’t want to be subservient to the <br />CWCB. Right now, our shared experience is implementation of SB 179. The tight time <br />frame was necessary, but didn’t allow enough room for expression of all viewpoints. <br /> <br />? <br /> Eri c Wilkinson: SWSI is the best thing the state has done in terms of water planning, and <br />we wouldn’t be here today without that process. CWCB needs to continue in that role. <br />SWSI has attempted to look at non - consumptive uses, but it wasn’t totally success ful. <br />The CWCB has statutory responsibilities on the Colorado River with regard to compact <br />administration, and has purview over some state policy decisions that aren’t up for <br />discussion. The relationship between the IBCC and the CWCB should be rich, fruit ful, <br />and supportive. As a CWCB Board member, I know I’m working to support this process, <br />and I think other board members feel the same. <br /> <br />? <br /> Rep. Kathleen Curry: Why couldn’t we set as a goal better communication between <br />IBCC and CWCB? An example of where things could have been done better is the <br />recent projects bill, which co uld have been run by the IBCC before now . <br /> <br />? <br /> Stan Cazier: We started the IBCC process because something about the system wasn’t <br />working. At one point in time, districts and board me mbers were closer together. Now <br />Colorado is so big with so many diverse interests that it’s difficult to get everyone <br />together. The Roundtables accomplish that. The re is a perceived in gap of information <br />and SWSI did not fully evaluate non - consumptive use – how much water has to be left in <br />Deleted: <br />evaluate non <br />the stream. That’s the most difficult question to answer. SWSI staff have done a good <br />job working with the Colorado River Roundtable, and any study you have is going to <br />have gaps. <br /> <br />? <br /> Alan Hamel: S taff fro m both organizations have done a great job and offered a great deal <br />of support. Being able to have facilitators has helped. Processing applications for SB 179 <br />money through the Roundtables is difficult and time consuming, since everyone is a <br />volunteer. H ow do you organize the administrative side of the Roundtables to at least <br />keep that going? The Roundtable process has brought people together that haven’t <br />historically been involved with water issues. IBCC and CWCB s taff have done a great <br />job, but we’ve been pushed sometimes – had to turn some applications around in 24 <br />hours. <br /> <br />? <br /> Jeris Danielson: W e’re a new organization, but have had two major successes : different <br />interests learning about each other within the Roundtables, and IBCC members learning <br />about o ther parts of the state . <br /> <br />5 <br />