Laserfiche WebLink
Concepts for Basin Evaluation & Prioritization <br />Ken Beegles provided hand-outs and reported that Steve Fearn., Chuck Wanner, Bruce <br />Whitehead, Robin Schiro, and Jenny Russell worked on this conunittee. Ken reported <br />that the subcommittee reviewed and made corrections to the guidelines based on input <br />from past roundtable meetings. The subconul7ittee is happy with this version. Gary <br />Kennedy and J. R. Berry thought this version would work nicely based on their <br />experience of subnutting applications. Jim Siscoe moved that this version be approved. <br />During discussion, Jim Isgar asked if this application would cover situation where <br />applicants were at a "concept" stage. It was agreed that it would not preclude being used <br />for that purpose, and the applicant would just need to answer to the best of their ability, <br />and wording to that end should be included. Jerry McCaw added that sometimes we <br />make these things so complicated, and he doesn't want an over-complicated application <br />be a discouragement. Someone pointed out that they'll have to answer those questions <br />for the State anyway. Steve said that he would call Rick Brown to tallc about looseiung <br />up on State requirements for "feasibility studies"-type requests. There was a consensus <br />that this version be approved. Ken Beegles will send a final copy to the members. <br />Consumptive Work Group <br />Ken Beegles and Bruce Smart attended a meeting in Denver last week with <br />approximately 40 people in attendance, including CWCB staff, IBCC and Roundtable <br />members, mostly from Denver Metro area. Ken referred members to a one-page <br />summary. He reported that in an 18-month study, SWSI-2 will be studied and re-evaluate <br />the gap in every basin, and that we need to look at projects to cover water deficiencies. <br />The work group is being pushed to look farther in the fixture, past 2030 to 2050. Harris <br />Sherman cautioned the Group to tlunlc in terms of state wide welfare, rather just their own <br />basins. CDM is the consultant for this work. There's still quite a bit of uncertainty in the <br />process and so much detail required and not much time to "push" inputs up. We need to <br />make sure that we get all the info we need to the tech people when they're here. Jim <br />Isgar asked why the consultants can't come here and work with us. Ken said they need to <br />collect more data to review the findings. Jim's understanding of the whole IBCC process <br />was for the State to give the Basins the tools they need to address their own problems. <br />Bn~ce shared that they met with an atmosphere of Front Range anxiety regarding their <br />current needs now, let alone in 2050. Jenny asked if the State was just providing a <br />common platform for each Basin to do its own work, or is it something else? Jolu1 Porter <br />added that one of the problems from SWSI was it stopped at the basin boundary line and <br />there was no communication on the gap between basins, and it's Jolui's perception that's <br />one of the reasons for HB 1177---getting basins to communicate together. Jim Isgar <br />clarified that SWSI identified the needs, HB 1177 provided the mechanism (roundtables) <br />that would review the projects, and S 179 provides the funding for the projects. <br />Non-Consumptive Work Group <br />Jerry McCaw reported that the Southwest Roundtable NCWG members will meet with <br />CDM consultants in late September in Durango. There was discussion about having the <br />consultants meet with both work groups at the same time. Some thought the groups <br />should remain separate entities at first, but could work together later in the process. After <br />much discussion, there was some consensus that both work groups remain independent of <br />