Laserfiche WebLink
This list includes comments from: <br /> <br />Melinda Kassen <br />Dan Birch (agreed with Mike Shimmin’s suggestions) <br />Mike Shimmin <br />John Porter <br />Steve Vandiver <br />Wayne Vanderschuere <br /> <br /> <br />TO DISCUSS ON CALL <br /> <br />IV (1) Add “recreation” and change “economic” to “socioeconomic.” <br /> <br />IV (4) The IBCC should take a stronger position in developing (via delegation) then adopting a <br />common technical platform. Such a platform is essential to providing a common set of standards <br />that Compacts can be evaluated and compared both on an individual and statewide basis. <br /> Standards could include but not limited to Colorado River Compact and other Compact issues, <br />groundwater assessments, water consumptive data, demographics, and economic contributions. <br />Also, this is necessary to satisfy paragraph 3 of Pre amble and IX. <br />The Charter provides the flexibility to do this and the decision was made at the last <br />meeting not to pursue technical platform specifics in the Charter. IBCC will do address <br />this over multiple meetings, and will be an on - going task. <br /> <br />IV (5) Change “Guide” to “Facilitate.” <br />Originally was “facilitate.” This was discussed at the IBCC meeting and the group <br />decided “facilitate” gave the impression of the IBCC being the “facilitator.” <br /> <br />V (4) Delete “is final or binding” and replace with “can be approved or ratified by the IBCC.” <br />This change is needed to make this provision consistent with the language that we now have in <br />Section IX that describes what we do when we review one of these agreements. A n agreement <br />can only be "final" after it is ap proved or ratified by the IBCC. It is only "binding" if the <br />agreement itself says it is. We should use the same terminology here that we use in Art IX. <br /> <br />VIII Add at the end - “ However, State regulatory agencies, county, district, and local <br />government entities should give favorable preference to ratified Compacts or other agreements in <br />any pla nning and permitting processes.” <br /> <br />IX (6) Recalled that a super majority (75%) vote was needed to approve or ratify. <br />Group agreed to a 75% for switching to a v ote, but then only 50% to approve or ratify. <br />This can be changed to both 75% if desired. <br /> <br />IX Need a more proactive statement about public participation and comment in this section. <br />Dealt with in section VI(2) and can be strengthened in by - laws <br />