My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
IBCC Meeting notes - 5-15-08
CWCB
>
Interbasin Compact Committee
>
DayForward
>
IBCC Meeting notes - 5-15-08
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/15/2009 11:54:05 AM
Creation date
6/4/2008 2:06:39 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Interbasin Compact Committee
Title
IBCC Meeting Notes 5/08
Date
5/15/2008
Interbasin CC - Doc Type
Meeting Notes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Melinda Kassen: Public tends to show up if there is a decision to be made or if they believe if they <br />can make a difference. EIS process-it's something in front of them and they can shoot at it or <br />agree with it. Only until the IBCC gets to substantive issues will they show up. <br />~Iolrn Po~tef•: I inform my public of what's going on at the IBCC through articles I write for a local <br />paper. <br />Chips Barry: I agree with Melinda and it's almost double in the Metro area. The only ones really <br />interested are those with water rights. <br />Decisions and Major Points: The PEPO work group is on the right track and will continue to <br />develop these ideas. <br />Visions for Colorado's Water Suuply Future <br />This discussion was facilitated by CDM and followed the document sent to IBCC members prior to <br />the meeting -There was a discussion o£ <br />• What came out of the iiutial round of discussions on the Visioning Exercise <br />• What strategies should be evaluated to support the visions <br />• Roles and next steps <br />The group discussed the March session. Members thought there were very good/meaningfi~l <br />continents on where Colorado is going. At the March meeting we discussed what does the status <br />quo look like 40-50 years out? The status quo is probably not the best approach. This has now <br />transitioned into "strategies" (demands, supply side, and regional coordination strategies). <br />Hopefully these can move us forward. But we still have not settled on a vision. Are we working on <br />defining a vision or looking at strategies? <br />Ha»~is Slzet•r~zan -Your role would be to evaluate trade-offs of strategies and you would help give <br />direction in the development of strategies. <br />Chips Batty: New strategies need to be examined (i.e. Demand side strategies). There should not <br />be double standard regarding conservation statewide (i.e. West/East slope). <br />Et~ic K1rhn: I agree -you use only what you need campaign by Denver is effective. Location is <br />important as "what you need" varies around the state. <br />Stan Caziet•: We need a conservation ethic. If we don't want to control growth, then there will <br />need to be some demand management. <br />Rita C~z~n~~~ton: We need message from top leaders saying that water is important to the state and <br />agriculture is important. Governor/Harris need to make bold statements about water. <br />Bill T~ampe: Put the responsibility on IBCC not Harris/Bitter. Disappointed we have not come <br />further since our last meeting. I think we have it backwards - we should develop a vision and then <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.