Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Western States Water Council <br />Full Council Minutes <br /> <br />Sioux Falls, South Dakota <br />May 4, 2007 <br /> <br />Someone asked, "Why don't we do it all by watershed?" We may have to provide some assistance <br />to tribes to participate. <br /> <br />Step 2 is for the group to develop a charter for MRRIC. Stakeholders need broad representation on <br />the planning committee. We expect four levels of participation - the drafting team, which will require some <br />commitment of time and resources, a review panel, public workshops through out the basin, and tribal and <br />public outreach. <br /> <br />The Charter will define representation, and the selection of members, etc. We anticipate it will take <br />nine months of work. We've selected a facilitation team that is meeting. The MRRIC planning group co <br />chairs are Ms. Cheryl Chapman, a Rapid City, South Dakota engineer and former Assistant Secretary of the <br />Navy, and John Thorson, of San Francisco, California, with experience in collaboration and working with <br />tribes. We are missing one key group, and the State of Missouri hasn't agreed to participate. The drafting <br />team will meet next in June. <br /> <br />Step 3 will be convening the MRRIC a year from now. She noted that WRDA 2007 authorizes <br />MRRIC. Ms. Roth's email addressis:Marv.s.roth@usace.armv.mil. <br /> <br />Ouestions and Answers <br /> <br />Dale Frink said it looked like Missouri seems to want veto power. <br /> <br />Mary Roth: There are more people in Kansas City than the rest of the basin! They don't see joining <br />as a benefit. <br /> <br />Dale: Are we stuck with the Master Manual? At the local level, the Spring rise is a big issue. It <br />seems you're taking our water in North Dakota to flood farmers in Missouri. FWS says it's required to avoid <br />jeopardy. In some ways it is a federal v. state issue, as opposed to upper and lower basin issue. It is harder <br />than I thought it would be to get this group going. It's a very, very complex mess! <br /> <br />Mary: The 2003 Missouri River Operations Biological Opinion required the MRRIC formation. It <br />also required the 2006 spring rise. Hard feelings were a result of the rise process, which though modified, <br />is better than the default plan. Most wanted no spring rise. Those people don't feel they were heard in <br />process. They don't make a distinction between that and this effort. With the situation assessment completed <br />in April 2006, the June 2006 federal working group, putting together the charter, with the co-chairs and <br />facilitation teams selected, there are a lot of people now at the table. <br /> <br />Mike Fallon made a comment about the federal working group being a "cookbook" example for what <br />the Western States Watershed Study is attempting to do, albeit on a smaller scale and only for one watershed. <br />We'd like to look at multiple basin in the West, not just the Missouri Basin. <br /> <br />Norm Semanko: So you don't have harvest issues, related to the tribal catch? In the Northwest, <br />salmon hatchery fish can be caught. <br /> <br />Mary: No, but caviar harvested from sturgeon other than the pallid, and the affect on pallids in the <br />system is an issue. <br /> <br />7 <br />