NonBasicSpecificComments12

• Title: Comments 12
• SWSI - Doc Type: Comments

'(' .' _0 :......1. t

than an hour of time allotted on the agenda at the February 17 Montrose meeting for
public comment. Even this time would likely have been overlooked had not ainember of
the roundtable pressed the consultants to open the floor to public comment.
This issue was also visited several times throughout the Arkansas Round Table due to
Advisors' and the public's dismay at the lack of public outreach by CDM. The taxpayers .
of CoJorado are spending $3 million on this process and should be given proper notice of
the meetings and the public comment.period during these meetings.

Comments are not addressed

As part of this process, all public comments are to be captured by the consultants. Prior to
this meeting, comments were not being regularly made "available to either the members of
the roundtable or to the public~ While some written comments are now available on the
SWSI site; verbal comments submitted at the Mont,rose Round Table do not appear. The
question remains whether comments will be addressed by either the roundtable members
or the consultants" and if SOt when and in what -manner?

Unless a process for addressing public comments is defioedt comments are merely a
means of letting those not seated at the table let off steam~ Setting aside time for them in
the open meetings is highly misleading, since capturing these comments implies there
wilLbe some response to them. Failure to accept comments at the meetings is, however~
not acceptable if this is to be an open process~

Scope of participation.questionable

How was participation in the roundtable;s determined? Does it reflect all possible"
interests and, as previously asked, are participants representing their own k~ow)edge and
desires or are they representative of "some larger constit\lency? If they represent some
larger constituency ~ they should be given adequate time" and direction to gather input
from that .constituencr regarding issues raised at,the open meetings.

Lack of internal dialog

There appears to be two-way dialog only between the consultants and members of the
roundtable~ Members are prevented from addressing each other's concerns and ftom
_learning from each other !9'.!~~~_y~_~_~roader consensus.. Small-group wor.k sessions.
would allow those with diverse')intereststo wo-rk ~ogether so as to understand each other~s -
needs and concerns and make use of available knowledge and experie_nce. This would be
even more effective if it included members of the public, who may have entirely separate
issues, but who could also playa role in educating the roundtable and the" consultants on
their concerns.

Flawed ranking of objectives
The method. of ranking objectives is flawed in several ways~

1. CWCB described a process in which local interests would develop a.list ~f
options for their individual basin. In fact~ this did_not happen. Instead, the