Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Smart Supply and Smart Storage criteria will be examples to follow when determining future <br />water decisions in Colorado. <br /> <br />4. Stovepiping: <br />When working with a diverse group of people who have not always communicated easily in <br />prior situations, it is imperative to build trust. We believe that the SWSI process suffers from a <br />framework that all too often finds the CWCB consultants and staff developing and presenting <br />information to roundtable participants and all too rarely finds roundtable participants engaged <br />with each other. To achieve consensus and mutual support for the projects and objectives of all <br />of the roundtable participants, we believe that the SWSI team must attempt to provide m~re time <br />for roundtable participants to talk to each other, as opposed to merely providing feedback to the <br />team, who is doing the lion's share of the work:.. Particularly once the ranking of alternatives <br />begins in earnest, unless the roundtable participants have fonned a foundation of trust and <br />respect, the give and take necessary to reach consensus will not be able to occur. We would like <br />to offer to meet with you and the SWSI consultants to discuss our suggestions in more detail. <br /> <br />s. Transparent Rankings: <br />The current process for ranking alternatives requires the contractors to aggregate individual <br />roundtable members~ preferences. Since the roundtable members cannot see how their <br />individual preferences stack up against the preferences of other individual members, it will be <br />substantially more difficult for members to identify areas of potential agreement or <br />disagteement F or this reason, we believe that the CWCB could increase the confidence of many <br />of the roundtable members if the staff and consultants would more thoroughly present and <br />explain the alternative selection process, including a disaggregation of individual roundtable <br />members' preferences. Process transparency-both in the detennination of the rOWldtable <br />memberst preferences and in the ranking of supply alternatives according to these preferences-is <br />necessary if the SWSI results and findings are to win acceptance with both participants and the <br />general public. <br /> <br />6. Public Outreach <br />Throughout the three sets of roundtable meetings, there has been a clear message of the need for <br />increased public outreach along with a more diverse effort in reaching different constituencies. It <br />is our hope that for the last roundtable meeting in which it is our understanding that more time <br />will be dedicated to informing the public of the process and taking questions and comments, that <br />the CWCB staff and consultants will set aside resources to ensure that the public is adequately <br />notified of these meetings. Our suggestions include sending out electronic and hard copy notices <br />well in advance of the meetings (2-3 weeks) to a diverse group of interests and ask them to send <br />the information to their lists. These groups should include: homeowners associations, watershed <br />forums and organizations, recreational interests including local businesses, consenration <br />organizations and local water providers. As for the media, we suggest sending out an advisoty a <br />week before the event, following up with reporters to write stories and sending a release the day <br />before the event. <br /> <br />III. Areas to be included in November final SWSI Report <br /> <br />1. Information Gaps: <br />To the extent that the SWSI Report reflects real data gaps, the report should acknowledge them.. <br />Obviously, one of the largest data gaps involves a lack of good data as to optimum stream flows <br /> <br />3 <br />