My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Minutes Sep 2008x
CWCB
>
Basin Roundtables
>
DayForward
>
Minutes Sep 2008x
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 4:57:59 PM
Creation date
10/23/2008 3:01:02 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Basin Roundtables
Basin Roundtable
Colorado
Title
Colorado Minutes 9/08
Date
9/22/2008
Basin Roundtables - Doc Type
Minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
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
f. Risk that policies may alienate. Eric Hecox counseled the CBRT to be wary <br />of developing policies that draw lines in the sand and can thwart future <br />collaborations. He described an Arkansas Roundtable position paper on <br />agricultural - urban water transfers that was recently developed by <br />agricultural, environmental and municipal representatives. They came up <br />with a template of issues and alternatives for water rights holders to consider <br />before going forward with a transfer. The Arkansas Roundtable is now <br />looking for actual cases to apply this to. <br />g. Next meeting. At the October CBRT meeting, Jewlya Lynn and Lyn <br />Kathleen lead a discussion considering (1) if there is a policy the CBRT <br />would like to take a stand on; and (2) what is the strategy to move forward. <br />Jim Pokrandt recommended that the CBRT read Eric Kuhn's Vision Paper <br />discussed at the April 2008 meeting, and that the CBRT consider adopting its <br />own basin-specific vision. <br />14. Eric Hecox reported on the IBCC Visioning process, which was the topic of <br />the August IBCC meeting in Palisade. The IBCC will discuss this again at the <br />October IBCC meeting. If members have additional comments, they should <br />forward them to Eric Hecox (Eric.Hecox@state.co.us) by Friday October 10. <br />Members made the following comments about the IBCC Vision Plan: <br />a. Future water decisions should address the cumulative impact and not just <br />the incremental impact; Rachel Richard. Viewed alone, each water project <br />has a minimal impact. However, when added to other projects, the cumulative <br />impact can be major. <br />b. Prior appropriations. Mark Fuller questioned whether the prior <br />appropriations doctrine could be modified to improve water transfers so that <br />agricultural, recreational, environmental, municipal and industrial demands <br />are being addressed. <br />c. Cost is a tool to improve conservation, but is not being highlighted in the <br />Vision Statement according to Ken Ransford. Eric Hecox said it was part of <br />many of the strategies on page 6. <br />d. Both East and West Slope demands should be considered, per Summit <br />County Commissioner Tom Long; East Slope interests appear to be preferred <br />over Western Slope interests.. This includes agricultural, recreational, <br />environmental, municipal and industrial demands, the first 4 bullet points <br />under Vision Goals on page 4. <br />e. The Vision Goals rehash SWSI according to Ken Neubecker. They are <br />avoiding the hard issues Colorado has to face, such as whether the Front <br />Range can have a bluegrass lawn at every house at the expense of drying up <br />rivers on the Western Slope. Phil Overeynder said that the goals and <br />I:AInterbasin Compact Committee\Basin Roundtables\COlorad0\Minutes\Minutes Sep 2008x.doc 6
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.