Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. L u5v L Vi '" ~ <br /> <br />Gilbert, Hanna <br /> <br />David. G raf @ s1ate4 co ~ us <br /> <br />Friday, November 07,2003 4:27 PM <br /> <br />Moreat Susan; Mosteller, Douglas; rick4brown @state~co.us <br /> <br />Steve. Puttmann @state.co.us; Sherman 4Hebein @ state.co.us; John. T onko@state4co.us; <br />Doug. Krieg e r @ state.co. us; Bruce. Meet oskey @ state. co . us; M ike4Grode @ state .co. us; <br />Grady. McNeill @ state4cO 4 us <br /> <br />Subject: SWSI Review - Objectives and Bibliography <br /> <br />From: <br />Sent: <br />To: <br />Cc: <br /> <br />Rick~ Sue. and Doug- <br /> <br />Thank you for including the Division of Wildlife in these important water-related discussions; and- for providing an <br />opportunity for our feedback to this process. Obviously we have interests both as stewards for wildlife resources <br />of the State, and as a holder of numerous water rights within every major river basin. To this end, I am including <br />a few comments on both the Objectives and the Bibliography sections J have reviewed. I also have included a <br />few general observations related to the participants~ difficulties grappling with the headers within the Objectives <br />section. Although I did not a1tend any but the west slope meetings, J would surmise other basins had similar <br />difficulties wrestling through the ambiguities, redundancies, and interpretations within the headers and sub- <br />headers. Also, if there is any additional information available at this point regarding the demand methodology for <br />environmental needs, I would like an opportunity to review this material before the next meetings. Finally, I <br />apologize for the delay in provjding you this review. <br /> <br />Comments on SWSI Objectives <br /> <br />General Comments: <br />The Yampa-White(-Green-Little Snake) obviously produced something of a 'new paradigm' for the objectives <br />discussion w.r. to the structure of the dfscussion and any subsequent evaluation of these objectives. ~ think this <br />particular discussion highlighted the basic d~fficulty with the concept of articulating 'values' that will serve as <br />quantjfiable indexes for the evaluation phase of SWSI, especially when it is perceived that all interests are not <br />represented equalry by the objective headers. Also as noted, many words or phrases are 'charged' with a <br />perceived bras (e.g., urecreational in-channel uses"; "highest beneficial use"); to the extent possible, these should <br />be avo;ded in the final word-smithing of the objectjves. <br /> <br />I believe there were 3-5 broad themes that emerged consistently throughout the meetings I attended: (1) Market <br />and economic efficiency shourd be accounted for; (2) water infrastructure should afso reflect an efficiency of use <br />and be able to capitalize on opportunities; (3) "institutional flexibility" should be enhanced, both in terms of reaf- <br />time water administrative and wfthin the broader legal framework, such as permitting and compliance wI <br />environmental laws; (4) the both the environment and recreational opportunities should be at least~ preserved, <br />and better yet, enhanced; (5) cultural and social values need to be recognrzed and preserved. Though these are <br />simply observations from four meetings~ their consistency from meeting to meeting is worth mentioning. To the <br />extent that your list of headers and sub-headers can be condensed and simplified, I would encourage it <br /> <br />Specific Comments: <br />Nos. 1-4, No_ 7 - , will 'eave to the word..smithers. I woufd take a cfose look at incorporating the objectives re: <br />cost effectiveness {#7} into these objectives, or re~framing one of them to specifically include the words 'least <br />Effectiveness'~ in the header. General sense was that the implications of ~reliabHity' (#1), 'efficiency' (#2), <br />'optimizing use' (#3), and 'implementability~ (#4) necessarily entail cost efficiencies. I woufd, however, include a <br />sub..header incorporating the need to acknowledge the less tangible cost externalities (e.g., opportunity costs and <br />trade--offs, cumulative effects, etc...) withfn this sectfon~ <br /> <br />No~ 5 - Recreation <br /> <br />. the phrase 'in-channel recreation' is one of the aforementioned 'Ioaded' terms. The point is a good one <br />("..provjde for.. .n) but perhaps different wording may make the same point without the guttural response <br />invoked by RICDs. . <br /> <br />1/22/2004 <br />