Laserfiche WebLink
Rita Crzrrrrpton: Just because we are looking at this doesn't mean we'll find the answers, <br />or be able to guarantee certain uses on certain stretches of the river. The State should be <br />overseeing what the Roundtables are conung up with. <br />~Iinz Isgar: If you are trying to develop water and you use the conul7on technical platform, <br />does that limit you from exploring what would happen if you use other methodologies? <br />Dart McA~rliffe: Nq land owners and regulators still have responsibility to look at options <br />in a regulatory process. <br />Eric Wilkinson: Thin line between common technical platform and guidelines and <br />criteria. It would behoove us to come up with criteria we're going to use -perhaps a <br />minimum amount necessary to achieve that beneficial use - in the common teclulical <br />platform. <br />Melinda Kassen: Having the information about a minimum environmental flow doesn't <br />create a mandate to do something any more than lost opportunities for irrigation create a <br />mandate to find water for them. The fact that we could do something doesn't mean it will <br />happen. kformation gives us the opportunity to have a discussion based on data. <br />C'hi~s Bcnry: For the purposes of evaluating fiiture domestic water need, we ought to <br />agree on a number for indoor household use. I think that comes under the heading of <br />common techncal platform. <br />Doug Scott: There is no common economic platform. Until we start establishing where <br />water will come from and willingness to pay, we can't understand the gap. <br />Rick B~°o~~~s~: Important to tallc about what kind of sideboards we want to put on looping at <br />consumptive and non-consumptive needs. All water users want regulatory certainty for <br />their current projects, and some way to plan for the future and understand tradeoffs <br />between consLUnptive and non-consumptive uses. <br />Hai°ris~ Sherman: It would be helpful to have periodic reports from each wore group, and <br />fraiilc discussion. Also update the CWCB. <br />Eric Hecox: We'll tallc about the IBCC role more at the October meeting, and report back <br />about the wore group activities. Does this group want to tape on some of the possible <br />solutions? <br />~Ieris Danielson: We ought to be conceptualizing and looking big-picture. We can't wait <br />until studies are done before we do anything. <br />Decisions and Major Points: The IBCC agreed to discuss the work groups and IBCC roles in <br />greater depth at the next meeting. Major points and questions include: <br />