Laserfiche WebLink
<br />eweB's contractor drafted a list and asked for the advisors reaction, including <br />additionS4 Why was this done? <br /> <br />24 Terms like cultural values] sustainabilityt optimize. enhance, operational <br />.fle~tibilit)f, ete, are not defined.. When subjective terms are not defined, no one <br />knows what is in the mind of the person who uses them. Thus, the information <br />. gathei'ed is useless or open to the manipulation of the researcher/consultant. <br /> <br />3. Asking individuals from diffedng stakeholder organizations to weight alternative <br />choices damages attempts at collaboration by forcing members to strengthen their <br />own position without regard to that of their collaborators. This process assumes <br />that the roundtable members hold adversarial positions, which is not necessarily <br />true, but may be made more so by the process itself~ " <br /> <br />"Demand" not adequately defined <br /> <br />W~at constitutes demand for .water has not been adequately defined. First, the basic <br />"definition is contradictory, and secondt there is no provision for reductions in demand. <br /> <br />During the SWSI meeting on the Gunn~son River Basin, Rick Brown stated that demand <br />was determined by adjudicated rights. HoweverJ future demand that is over and above <br />current adjudicated rights is included in the~demand curve, while current shortfalls on <br />minimum instream fl~ws, as stated by the Department of Fish and Game, are not included <br />but rather consid~red an alteroative. Neither is currently adjudicated but clearly more <br />legitimacy has already been given to future ,Municipal and Industrial uses than to current <br />ecosystem or"recreation nee~s4 We do not believe this is in the interests _of the people of <br />Colorado as a whole4 <br /> <br />Furthermore, factors that lead to a reduction in future demand have not been considered <br />in the demand caJculations.. For example, <br />1. the transfer of Ag water to M & I as cities expand and take qver farm land, . <br />, 2. the potential for further decline in demand due to efficiency and <br />3. useage chan.e;~~, a~_show~_j~__!!!e Smart Walee analysis (70/0 reduction in .per capita <br />use from 1994 - 2001) ---,,---- _.._.. <br />have not been considered". This results in a potential overestimate of demand which <br />distorts the'.evaluation~ <br /> <br />Inadequate Information on Existing Resourc~s and Supply <br /> <br />The list of options does not give any clarifying characteristics. Advisors do not have all <br />of the information they need to make educated decisions on ranking of the objectives or <br />of the options themselves.. This is of .particular concern for the environmental and <br />recreation interests. <br /> <br />Tiering .metho~s lack credibility <br /> <br />Finally, the means for determining what projects are Tier 1, 2 and 3 smacks of the fox in <br />the hen hous~ analogy by leaving it solely up to sponsors to state how f~r along a project <br />