Laserfiche WebLink
municipal water suppliers to mak e sure that all SWSI assumptions were correct. Our big <br />chal lenge is non - consumptive use. The Roundtable wants to take hard look at that and <br />take a look at alternatives to permanent ag ricultural dry up, and will look at the results of <br />SWSI II to determine what additional studies we need. <br /> <br />Question 4: How are basins working with each other? We have statewide water issues that must <br />be addressed – is this process helping the basins work closely with one another? <br /> <br />? <br /> Eric Kuhn: The IBCC and R oundtables have no legal authority to enter into contracts, <br />appropriate water, and implement projects . At some point in time, every R oundtable that <br />wants to implement something which requires construction or owning water will have to <br />turn to another entity. The c oncern is that there are lots of discussions going on in <br />parallel, including NEPA processes and water rights discussions. How can we be both <br />transparent (to get buy - in) and maint ain appropriate confidentiality? Right now, we’re <br />t rying to walk fine line of doing both. In Gunnison, how do we put back together the <br />pieces of Black C anyon ? The same issues will be faced in other basins. <br /> <br />? <br /> T. Wright Dickinson: Bringing these tough issues to the table in a way that promotes <br />discussion and helps people understand the issues is a major challenge for us . The <br />Yampa doesn’t want to be sacrificial lamb for the rest of state – if that happened, all <br />water would be flowing downhill, and that brings no sustainability to the basin. Most <br />folks won’t understand that unless they hear discussion in a forum like this. How are you <br />going t o keep the state whole and vibrant ? <br /> <br />? <br /> Mike Shimmin: We’ve known for a long time how to fight with each other. The recent <br />trend has been negotiation on a project by project basis. The IBCC proce ss attempts to <br />reach a new level of cooperation, with the goal of building a water project we could call a <br />Colorado water project. Existing water processes work really well at doing a lot of <br />things, but haven’t worked well at figuring out how to cooperate with each other. <br /> <br />Question 5: A number of major water issues are in progress right now that are not part of this <br />IBCC process – when and where do we try to integrate these efforts? <br /> <br />? <br /> Harris Sherman: We welcome further ideas you have in coming weeks and m onths. The <br />process needs time to work and evolve, and it’s going to take experimentation . Some <br />issues are difficult – parallel processes, how do they proceed in conjunction with IBCC? <br />The o pportunity to set a framework for relationships between basins w ill continue. We <br />n eed to give more attention to the ongoing processes, and look at how to bridge the needs <br />for both transparency and confidentiality. <br /> <br />? <br /> Jeris Danielson: A large part of the success of this process to date is due to the work that <br />Eric Hec ox has done, and the fact that he has credibility with the Roundtables, and they <br />know he speaks for the Director. Need to maintain his ability to do that. <br /> <br />? <br /> Rod Kuharich: One of the goals of the IBCC process was to place the burden on <br />members to rise abov e the individual positions they bring to table. The CWCB is here to <br />Deleted: <br />positions they <br /> <br />8 <br />