Laserfiche WebLink
Mike: reviews discussion about how it makes it sense that a possible way to conserve is to look to <br />future and building for looking at conservation in new construction. <br />Harold Evan: If we need to go state-wide xeriscaping, do it state wide... if we will have this <br />criteria, need to do it across the board, SWASI conservation task force presents a very- clear and <br />balanced study. <br />Mike: indeed, if it applies to us, should apply to the entire state. <br />Bill: new plumbing is all low flow, what would happen if all green grass was eradicated, 50-70%. <br />Eric: CU vs. tap; yard-50-60% go to yard; conservation ethic, <br />John Metli: 46% goes to grass, <br />Mike: Sees this as a road block issue; unless we do this, they will not contribute anv more water. <br />Statement made during meeting: we should not even be studying transbasin diversion until <br />conservation. <br />Eric: No, we need to sav that we need to push forward on study <br />Janet: Studv that we presented on conservation on ag as compared to southwestern part of the <br />state, when Metro asked about conservation issue, other basins, said no when it comes to ag; <br />therefore, need to bring it for-xvard for ag as well as grass. Therefore, fair is fair... <br />Don Arnent: Difficult to tell people how to use the water they have a right to; <br />Bill Jerke: Greater issue is the return flow that built the South Platte <br />Mike: We did not get into the ag conservation piece; I don't disagree that this is quagmire, but <br />some IBCC there, if we are going to talk about how we conserve. AG conservation... West Slope <br />water diversions are much higher than AIL and South Platte <br />Mike: See tip of iceberg represented by this debate. <br />Comes back to conceptual frarneNvork... are we going to make policy choices as per what is <br />justifiable or not justifiable as to water use in this state. I might be heretic, but perhaps we need to <br />stop planting bluegrass in this state; demands need to catch up with 2.8 million more by 2030 <br />then 4.8 million more by 2050.1mv will we use our water, potential water, where to come from. <br />--Mike: Using 200,000-400,000 to develop shale... worst thing we could do; we as a state should <br />never consider doing this. Want this on the table at IBCC. Guys on west slope should have this <br />projection of energy reason that we do not get any on east slope. <br />Desalination: If CA is going to put in big desalination plant, go to CA and tell them double that <br />capacity, and then we will keep the water here. Yampa Valley rep brought it up. <br />--Todd: CWCB staff has been directed to start working on all strategies identified. <br />--Eric: AIL, Platte and Metro must keep pressure on CWCB to move these forward, therefore, <br />important to keep Mike and Eric directed to keep these to push forward... particularly to push <br />transbasin diversions on the table. Seemed that there was an attempt to pull those off the table as <br />preconditions. Did make comment to Harris Sherman that if we are not considering all strategies, <br />no need for IBCC to cooperate between basins; therefore, if there is no basin interaction then no <br />need for IBCC. <br />Bill Jerke: Therefore, do we need to put forward a motion to give Mike and Eric full reign in <br />putting all options on the table and moving forward these directions. Give flexibility and trust to <br />Mike and Eric to move forward. <br />Bert: So Moves. Too early to take anything off table <br />John Metli: Second <br />Tom Iseman: Not tieing to put up obstacles but feel need to review the document. <br />Motion carries. <br />Harold Evans: Would like to schedule this on October meeting agenda to go over this document. <br />Mike Shimmin: Yes, I would suggest that you focus on Vision statement, Preamble and Vision <br />goals. These are farther along in terms of drafting than the strategies, strategies are more at <br />concept level.