Laserfiche WebLink
Eric Wilkinsoy~: Need to develop some templates, not projects. Transfer of water from S.Platte, <br />Arkansas, Gunnison, Colorado, Yampa, and Green Mountain. You start down that road and <br />people will engage. Tlus would provide a vehicle. <br />Eric Hecox: Can also add a conservation template. <br />Wavrre L'arzderschuere: Do not want to be 18 months down the road and say "now what?" We <br />also need to consider how to support the IPP's so gap is not bigger. <br />Bill Ti°ampe: I have to second Rita's concern. Concerned about having this dialogue about <br />solutions. We need to recognize we are working with a limited resource. Can we have wall to <br />wall people and still have a state that lives off recreation and tourism. Everything around the <br />table is market driven so why are we going through the effort? <br />Jeris Danielson: Why we are here is because there is a short fall of 400,000 - 600,000 ac.ft. <br />While we philosophize city and county government are making decisions. We are not going to <br />say no more growth in Colorado. You camiot regulate growth by regulating the water supply. <br />Need to look at what our choices are. We need to look at do we continue to dry up the Arkansas <br />and S.Platte or use some of our unused water? <br />Cap°lyle C,7zrr•iet•: This is market driven, but if we are going to look at land use and water use we <br />need to look at what is the firture of agriculture and the ameiuties it provides (return flows, open <br />space, etc.). What is agriculture going to look like down the road? <br />Harris Shermaf~: Historically, water has been developed by municipalities and agriculture. <br />Should the state come together in a development mode and try to protect all the values? For <br />example, State develops a project and takes all things into consideration (agriculture, <br />environment, municipal, east/west slope). Does that, at this juncture, make sense for Colorado? <br />Stan C'azier•: The state legislature has not been successful. Political will is not there. Never had <br />a decent analysis of conservation or tap fees. <br />Ray Wright: Still a stniggle for communities to survive. Needs to be a fundamental shift and <br />recogiution everyone can live through this. <br />Wavne f'ar~derschzrere: Is CWCB going to have a similar conversation? <br />Rick Bro~~~y~: We have. Embarl~ing on this path is what the CWCB wants to do. <br />Jinn Isgar: We need to move forward. How we develop water we are entitled to is an <br />appropriate discussion. <br />Decisions and Major Points: The IBCC agreed with the roles outlined in the presentation. <br />There was general agreement that broader solutions should be looked at, but there was not <br />general agreement on when or how this should occur. <br />