Laserfiche WebLink
1. After the issue is discussed, Roundtable members have time to go back <br />to their stakeholders for their input and consensus. <br />2. Develop procedures to decide how the matter will be voted on and <br />when a vote will be taken. <br />3. Pick narrowly defined areas where consensus is likely. <br />4. Permit Roundtable members to withdraw and not sign on to the <br />motion. <br />e. Members suggested the following topics would be candidates for CBRT <br />policy positions: <br />1. Ballot Amendment 52 to cap severance tax revenues and divert them <br />to Interstate 70 improvements. <br />2. Water bank loans in times of drought - what if this affects downstream <br />shallow aquifer well users? <br />Complete the non-consumptive needs assessments before going <br />forward with water diversions. <br />4. Will the prior appropriations system control how water is diverted to <br />develop energy supplies, or will a new collaborative process emerge? <br />1041 powers: This is the only tool that local Boards of County <br />Commissioners possess to consider how water rights are being used on <br />(or severed from) land. <br />6. Develop a protocol for transferring water between basins. <br />7. Should the CBRT attempt to affect policies established by the <br />Colorado River Water Conservation District? <br />8. Can the Front Range purchase water rights that pre-date the 1922 <br />Colorado River compact? <br />9. Tom Clark recommended that we discuss what role risk plays in water <br />use decisions. <br />10. Dick Proctor recommended that we discuss CWCB's policy that water <br />rights holders must transfer water rights to the CWCB if a project is <br />funded by the CWCB. <br />11. Pre-1922 water rights holders should be careful to use and not abandon <br />their water rights. <br />I:AInterbasin Compact Committee\Basin Roundtables\ColoradoAMinutes\MinUtes Sep 2008x.doc