July 08 South Platte Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

applications in Clear Creels all with purpose to mitigate the recreation in-channel diversion; the report is saving that as soon as that right was filed on the river, it eliminated the opportunity- for upstream storage. Therefore. important to note this in report. Eric Wilkinson: Would be appropriate in this document to cite the impact of rec claims on water. Harold Evans: page 18, return floe=s: please add that you will not get all of this acre ft, because you need to maintain historical return flows to consumable return flow reuse. Sasha Charney: page 3: Conditional Water Rights need to be added; need more discussion that there are mangy- projects vis a yis competing water. DiNatale: Look at top of page 10 Charneti-: Please eipand. In general, the report hops between the descriptive and the predictive: suggesting techniques that should be applied; for eiample- paragraph at bottom of page 11 "actions that should be takeir"; would be useful to go through this and cull this out and have this document focus more on the description of the situation because the Roundt<lble is the body that should make predictions or suggestions: opines that there should be another section that would have conclusions (summar<- of findings) and then recommendations. Shilnmiii: Once we finalize this document, how does this relate to the totality of the document that «i11 be our needs assessment? The sections in tlus document are not in logical order; I tlunk we need to figure out how this will fit into the final `Needs Assessment Report" that must include a summai~- from the conclusions of SWASI that we had adopted as our prilnai~- needs assessment; this report ~~ as to supplement those items that SWASI did not address: and then, as Ms. Charnev addressed, eye need another final written eipression of our final needs assessment. Will the Consultants assemble something for us? Interested in worl~ing towards that document as well as finalizing the language in this document. Hecoi: This final report ryas aimed at specificalhT ho~y eye fi-amed our questions in the task order: this will be a stand alone document to answer those needs assessment questions; then, this will be combined ~~-ith SWASI findings as well as work that non- consumptive coimnittee doing; time frame: hope to «~-ap up this part this summer; have task orders wrapped up, then during fall, will continue to ~york on state ~yide demands and to update the identified projects from water providers; then in Spring of 2009 ~yill work towards issuing a final basin-~yide assessment. Shimmin: Challenge: there are word smithing issues ~~-ith this document before ~~ou go foi7~ard; in man~T places, the report is worded in a very neutral conteit; the word "may" is used too frequenthr: need to be stronger in our utterances; ~yhere, then, as members of the roundtable, do we contribute our input? Perhaps there exists a gap between consultants and ~yhat we as members of roundtable need to do: this assessment needs to articulate the state of our basin, ~yhat eye hare, ~yhat we don't have, and what will meet fixture gap. In most places, this is descriptive, and lists possibilities: thus, as a roundtable, we need to draw some conclusions as far as ~yhat this document rea11~- means. Hecoi: This ~yill be a stand alone document that everyone ~yill have access to: but also this is not complete. Shimmin: Concerned that eye ~yill have a final document that includes this as a stand alone piece: and people in other parts of the state may see this uncertainh ;opines that we need a blunt statement that we are using our ~~-ater 6-7 times, we have little appropriated ~yater left, and there are multiple competing projects for that, and we have two choices: develop ~yater projects in another basin or dig- up ag. Our final report needs to articulate that so that other basins clearly see that in our assessments. Need to avoid language that is ambiguous and less decisive. 6