My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
FLOOD11204
CWCB
>
Floodplain Documents
>
DayForward
>
1
>
FLOOD11204
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/29/2010 10:12:16 AM
Creation date
12/28/2007 3:50:17 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Floodplain Documents
County
Jefferson
Arapahoe
Basin
South Platte
Title
Chatfield Reallocation Study: Meeting Minutes 11/01/2007
Date
11/1/2007
Prepared For
Meeting Participants
Prepared By
CWCB
Floodplain - Doc Type
Meeting Summary
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />Tom: Part of my reason of trip tomorrow, Pat Kowaleski and Dan McAuliffe going too, is, what <br />are the roles going to be. Post-Rod. Who is doing what? Does the Corps have the official <br />ability to hand it over. Or conversely, is there a need for the Corps to have a bigger role. Since <br />we haven't seen anything officially yet, <br /> <br />Ronda: Is there something triggering this meeting? <br /> <br />Tom: No, its timely due to we're apprehensive/curious on EIS progress, this data issue. <br /> <br />Ronda: This specific issue, post-Rod issues? <br /> <br />Tom: We've been talking about it. It will become pressing, it's something contractual, as <br />Vaughn is trying to figure out this contracting, mitigation issue will be attached to this contract, <br />need to know how it's going to be done. <br /> <br />Ronda: Any public water users going? They have an interest in how this functions, need a better <br />dialogue between CWCB and water users, you're getting out ahead of the water users in funding <br />for the mitigation. Talked about their roles for private section in mitigation, and I'm not ready to <br />walk away from that yet, before we get too tight on structure, who does what, we need more time <br />to figure out. <br /> <br />Tom: Safe to say, tomorrow, the higher level question about Corps oversight with non-federal <br />leadership doing mitigation, or the other way around. Not about structuring details on whose <br />doing what work, but the bigger questions. Non-federal means any of us. <br /> <br />Ronda: When we get to that point there's going to be a questions about costs. <br /> <br />Rick: Might make them think we're just fine about how things are going. Item 1 - they just <br />missed the deadline, when are they going to make deadlines, are they going to meet future <br />deadlines. We got plenty of time to worry about who does what, what is going to make them not <br />miss the deadline. Message from Colorado is we're mad because they miss deadlines, some <br />sense of extreme anger, irritation, something, instead of not talking about past, shake them up a <br />little. Get a message that they can't just keep missing these deadlines. I wish this trip was just <br />about this. 4 years history of missing deadlines, with this new person, let's send them a message. <br />Tell them to work on our project and get this going. That's why Dan McA is going. <br /> <br />Karen: It would be nice if you could understand that the private sector and government work <br />totally differently. Everything is being done that it can, resources limit why. We're not trying to <br />hold anyone up. I don't know if you do that, ifit will actually help the situation. We are <br />working as fast as we can. <br /> <br />Rick: If you don't squeak, you don't get attention. <br /> <br />Ronda: Need to know what the problem is, who is it. We ought to figure out what the pieces <br />we are waiting for are. <br /> <br />11 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.