SWRT Meeting Summary 5-13-08 final

Home Browse Search

Report from Non-consumptive Work Group Jim Siscoe reported that they have built the non-consumptive attributes, about 120 in number. He is hesitantto put mapstogether because he needs information on endangered fish from DOW. Another missing puzzle piece is the projected future use. The committee needs to meet to establish priorities. And they need to getthe "Non-consumptive Principles" document from Rick. There was discussion about the benefit of the consumptive and non-consumptive groups doing integrating their workaround a common hydrology and there was general consensusthatthis wasthe rightapproach. It was suggested thatwe needtogeta lotofpubliccommenton non- consumptive use priorities-therewas a fearthatyounger-aged prioritiesare not being represented at this table. Inter-Basin Roundtable Talks Mike Preston shared that some East Slope roundtables wanted to dialogue with the West Slope about state-wide water needs. We're willing to participate, at least to begin to understand each other's issues. But it was suggested thatthelNest Slope Roundtables discusstheir positions togetherand then gotothe East Slope roundtables. The question for us: is dialogue between the West and East Slope roundtables redundant with IBCC work? Rick shared that the Metro Roundtable doesn't have anything to meet about because they have no water. They have to look outside their basin for water in order to meet statutory requirements of the roundtable. Theyfeel the onlythingtheycan workon is transbasin diversions. They'rethe most vocal, but the South Platte is getting anxious because of the loss of irrigated acreage. Rick felt that Harris Sherman will take the IBCC input on future vision, give them to CWCB to do work plans around the vision and then give the work plans back to the roundtables and IBCC for discussion. John Porteradded thatthere can begood synergy between the roundtablesand the Conservation Districts. An example is that SWCD and the Colorado River District are having on-going dialogues about Colorado River Compact issues. Rick said we need to balance our compact responsibilities with keeping the most amount of water in the Colorado possible. Rick added there is a working group, a Front Range Water Council which is a coalition of transbasin diverters. It includes Denver, Colo. Springs, Northern, etc. They are somewhat conflicted with their own basin. Mike added that the concept of the roundtables is good in that it gets diverse people together to discuss issues and understand moreabouta largerpicture, butthe issueofstaffsupport is critical and we'restill notsurehow to tap into the support that's available. Steve Fearn asked why the process can't be worked through the IBCC and felt that we should start there. Mike stated that we should tap into the groups that are staffed such as the IBCC, CWCB, and Water Conservation Districts that have staff and resources to contribute to the process. Steve suggested thatwe use the November meeting to focus on the Compact. Steve madesomesuggestionson informationthatcould be reviewed prior to the meeting. Jim Siscoe added that we should also hear from someone who has insighttothe more political aspects of the Compact.