Laserfiche WebLink
K. Cu~~y: As an elected official I can't say what I want to say because of politics. I<i terms of a <br />where we go from here - this a good move. I don't tlui~lc the path we are on is sustainable and <br />the direction we are on I don't like either. Pd like to find a better balance. More water to the <br />Front Range is not going to help agriculture, it will help Front Range. The piece of legislation <br />that I am putting forward that ties land use and water. Thank you to everyone for entering <br />the discussion with that bill. This is a worthwhile effort. <br />C: Barmy: Does everyone lalow what Kathleen's bill is (HB-1141)? It addressed a central <br />question -can growth go forward without water supply to meet the need? <br />E. Kuhn: Denver Water Board raised the basic question. Should Denver and the west slope be <br />part of the solution for areas that have a nonsustainable water supply or do you insist on a <br />solution today? <br />R. C~unapton: The water providers need the authority to say no, you can't build that subdivision. <br />At what point do the water providers get the power? <br />B. TNampe: The Front Range's attitude has been we'll just get what we need and this rubs the <br />west slope the wrong way. If we are going to have a dialogue, we need to be real about these <br />things. <br />K. Cu~~y: The bill has passed conunittee and now the bill is in the appropriations conunittee. <br />This will increase workload at DWR. I have been asked to limit this to the Denver Basin <br />aquifer but have resisted. If this is to move forward, it should apply to all connnunities. The <br />west slope has gotten the Colorado municipal league to be in opposition of the bill. <br />S: Vanrlive~: Why would anyone not want this? <br />K. Cu~y: This is growth control and they don't want the state to define the parameters. The <br />debate is centering around the definition of "adequacy" of a water supply. <br />H. She~rraan: T.W. Wright mentioned we have each gone around and marked our territory. Are <br />we conung moderately close to a vision of where we would like to go or are we far away? <br />C: Barmy: We are closer than we were a year ago. A document needs to be produced that <br />everyone can review and then there is a possibility of fairly widespread agreement. <br />H. SheNNUCn: Will ask CWCB staff to distill what we've heard today and articulate a general <br />vision in advance of the next meeting. Which will lay out a vision of Colorado's fiiture as it <br />relates to water? Does this make sense? <br />B. Ti~ampe: We don't like where we are going but not consensus as what we are going to do <br />about it. No discussion about where we are going. <br />10 <br />