Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Western States Water Council <br />Executive Committee Minutes <br /> <br />San Antonio, Texas <br />October 20, 2005 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Karl said he was trying to think of a way to frame it so that the issues are generally applicable, <br />but the solutions or the specific recommendations will be up to each state. A universally applicable <br />issue for which we could form recommendations would be aging infrastructure. The other items are <br />universal issues, but they are not universally applicable. <br /> <br />Dave Pope said there will not be a "one size fits all" solution. It will vary a lot. We need to <br />recognize that. The issues are appropriate. We need to think of our priorities and a range of solutions. <br />There are certain issues that require federal action. There are others that will vary a lot by state in <br />terms of their particular situation. <br /> <br />Karl indicated that in terms of the public input, it is problematic in a universe the size we are <br />trying to work within. It is problematic anywhere. I'll remind you of the paralysis that engulfed the <br />Water 2025 effort, largely because of the huge diversity of public input. There was no consensus. <br /> <br />Duane Smith said he agreed somewhat with nearly everything that had been said. But he <br />wanted to throw out the perspective that the governors want to do something "on their watch." If I <br />were a governor, I believe I would take my direction on water issues from the Western States Water <br />Council, and if they didn't offer any direction, I would take it from some other place. I would lean <br />heavier toward working on getting recommendations. I would suggest that on aging water <br />infrastructure, we could make a recommendation. Perhaps we could also recommend something on . <br />desalination, like we want federal money to look at research. I really think we need to work hard on <br />getting them some recommendations. If we decide we cannot provide recommendations, then the <br />second position would be to present information on the issues. <br /> <br />DL Sanders: I'm thinking more in terms of augmentation. We are moving water around New <br />Mexico, and people are making plans to pipe water from one part of the state to another part, and my <br />concern is with non-point source pollution criteria. If we augment supplies, and we fall within the <br />Clean Water Act, we are concerned with the water quality moved in from one point to another. That <br />could greatly limit our ability to move water around the state. Perhaps this issue is more specific to <br />New Mexico, but I would be very concerned with those kinds of issues. I hate to see the evolution of <br />the water quality as being too great an impediment. <br /> <br />Stephen Bernath: I think that when we talk about sustainable water, it must not only be a <br />sustainable supply, but also consider the quality of the water. A quality component should be included. <br /> <br />Hal Simpson then indicated to the group that more will be known after the WGA meeting in <br />November. Craig will attend the meeting, and we will then report back to members of the Executive <br />Committee via conference call. We will then determine whether we'll try to prepare a report with a set <br />of recommendations and/or priorities for the WGA Annual Meeting in June. <br /> <br />Shaun advised committee members to sit down with their state's WGA Staff Council member <br />and talk about water issues and get them prepared for the discussion so that when Craig comes to the <br />meeting, they already have water in their thinking. That could be really helpful. This way Craig is not . <br />just saying things, but he could even solicit some feedback and get buy-in from them. <br /> <br />6 <br />