Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Gunnison Basin Roundtable Technical Meeting #2 <br />Meeting Summary <br /> <br />. BRT members feel it is okay to reference documents if they're publicly accessible. <br />. BRT members expressed approval to share their individual comments publicly. <br /> <br />Water Management Objectives <br /> <br />Sue Morea presented the revised list of water management objectives and subobjectives, based <br />on comments and feedback obtained from the first round of BRT meetings around the state and <br />from the CWCB Board meeting in November 2003. Sue explained how the original list of <br />objectives was modified based on this input. The SWSI team found through this process that <br />there was significant consistency from basin to basin in the types of objectives identified, <br />though there are significant differences from person to person and basin to basin in the relative <br />importance of each of the objectives to the BRT members. The SWSI process is designed to <br />identify and track the relative importance or "preference" each BRT member places on each <br />water management objective. Once water management alternatives are developed, each BRT <br />member will be able to see how well an alternative meets their individual preferences and the <br />BRT as a whole can see which alternatives have elements that can be largely agreed upon. <br /> <br />Paul Brown presented an overview of how the objectives will be weighted by individual BRT <br />members and then used in the evaluation of alternatives in later phases of SWSI. An example <br />weighting form for the objectives and subobjectives was reviewed. It was stressed that the <br />"numeric" alternative evaluation process in SWSI is intended to provide information on <br />individual preferences, but that the numeric results serve as a starting point for BRT discussion, <br />rather than determining the final disposition of an alternative. Later BRT meetings will focus on <br />discussion of the alternatives based on these results. The process is not one of "majority rules" or <br />a "vote," rather it is a facilitated discussion that seeks common ground between diverse <br />interests. <br /> <br />Feedback from the BRT members on the objectives and subobjectives is summarized below. <br /> <br />. Do the demand/ supply methodologies fully embrace the objectives as stated? Do baseline <br />assumptions capture environmental and recreational values? <br />. Suggested that "feasibility" should be added to agriculture demands objective. <br />. "Operational flexibility" should reflect how existing facilities are operated. <br />. Minimum stream flows as a baseline do not in themselves address environmental needs <br />regarding "when" and "where" needed. <br />. Alternatives should include "options" that improve environmental water management. <br />. Gunnison Basin has a lot of experience with collaborative processes that may impact <br />weighting because individuals may not be inclined to weight items as from an "individual" <br />perspective. <br />. It may be important to see an alternative(s) first, and depending on the attributes of the <br />alternative, the weighting may change for each alternative. <br /> <br />Demand Proj ections <br /> <br />The preliminary results of demand projections, both statewide and specific to the Gunnison <br />River Basin and its counties, were presented by Kelly DiNatale. Kelly also briefly reviewed the <br /> <br />CDIVI <br /> <br />3 <br /> <br />Gunnison BRT Mtg #2 Summary.doc 4/16/2004 <br />