Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br />II <br />ii <br />, <br /> <br />Western States Water Council <br />Executive Committee Minutes <br /> <br />San Antonio, Texas <br />October 20, 2005 <br /> <br />There are definitely some logistics to be considered. The Council does not meet again until <br />next Spring. Would it be possible to put together the information, review it at the Spring meeting, and <br />then actuaUy have it finalized in time for the Governor's Annual Meeting. There are ways to gather <br />public comment such as through blast emails allowing 30 days for comment, and so forth. It would <br />~ give the recommendations a little more credibility. <br /> <br />The Committee agreed the list is good. It includes the points we want to get the governors' <br />attention on. It is a matter of determining how to bring it to the governors. <br /> <br />Larry Anderson noted that he also agrees the list is good. He commented that when we talk <br />about potential growth, each state has, I suspect, a responsibility to do statewide water planning to <br />identify ways to meet future water needs. In Utah, we have done that through 2050. Our state's <br />growth is projected to double between now and 2050. I have some concern that we go to the governors <br />and say th,ese are impending issues, because it may imply that we don't have any concept of how to <br />manage these issues. In Utah, I know we are aware of how to meet the demands between now and <br />2050. We, may not be successful in what we have included in the state water plan. That may not hold <br />for all of the states. But I just wanted to throw out the idea that it may imply that we don't know how <br />to do things. <br /> <br />Hal Simpson reminded that at the meeting held last fall in Salt Lake City, all of the states laid <br />out how they are dealing with future water needs. There may be a way of building off that, and then <br />stating that we feel the governors need to weigh in on some of these issues in a specific way. <br /> <br />Jack Stults reiterated that Larry's comment is important. It needs to be shown that the states <br />are all working within their own jurisdictions and they are also working collaboratively through the <br />Western States Water Council, but there are some overarching themes that must be dealt with, <br />particularly with the federal government. The governors need to push the agenda. <br /> <br />In response to Hal's question that the group wants to put together a report with a set of <br />recommendations, Karl Dreher noted that we may want to include a report with a set of priorities. Not <br />necessarily each state's priorities, but from the perspective of western water managers and water <br />quality administrators. Recommendations need actions on specific items. "Priorities" means focus on <br />specific items. Recommendations imply that this is what we want the governors to do. Karl questioned <br />whether we can get prepared to do that. Regressing for a moment, he added that one of the things that <br />is missing from water augmentation is new projects - additional surface/ground water storage. <br /> <br />Shaun replied that it is his sense that the governors would look for a clear description of the <br />problems with water resources and then some pathways to help solve these problems. Karl may be <br />correct that it is not necessarily recommendations, if we don't have time to develop recommendations, <br />but one other option is to say to the governors, we think we have a real problem with water supply, for <br />example, and we want your blessing to undertake this process over the next few years to develop some <br />recommendations. Does the Council want to manage that kind of broad-based process? <br /> <br />5 <br />