SWRT Meeting Summary 9-10-08 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

determined that they will hold a series of public meetings to get input on recreation, heritage sites, etc. Meetings would be targeted in the San Miguel Basin, Dolores and Mancos, Durango (Animas, Pine & Florida Rivers) and Pagosa Springs (Piedra and San Juan Forks). There was some discussion on the logistics of setting up the meetings. Mike encouraged members of the Roundtable to attend these meetings when they are held in their respective communities. Help will be needed to record the meetings, provide refreshments and venues. The Round Table will need some budget assistance to cover these items, including a small amount of local advertising. It was suggested that CDM could create power point presentations, but the committee said they wanted to keep the meetings fairly simple. Mike and Chuck will discuss this with Eric Hecox and ask for resource assistance. IBCC Vision Process: John Porter shared the process that IBCC has gone through to date. The purpose of the visioning process is to create a picture of what we want Colorado to look like in fifty years and move towards that goal. The "status quo" impact on agricultural land is a major concern. In order to control and/or guide growth, you have to tie land and water usage together. The vision statement says that the vision strategies will lead to implementation of identified projects. There was a concern that the strategies would create implementation plans that are not clear as to who and how it should be done and if the results would really meet the strategy's intent. John read the vision statement: "We envision a Colorado that sustainably meets the municipal, industrial, agricultural, environmental and recreational needs by promoting cooperation between all uses." At the bottom of pages 3, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10 is an "Action Item" -this is where IBCC is asking for input from the roundtables. John reminded the members of the last meeting where we discussed the strategies-demand side and supply side. There is nothing new there. However, when you get down to the implementation of those strategies is where discussion needs to occur. Steve Harris added that some of the discussion included questions such as do municipalities use conserved water for growth? How secure and permanent would that be? Will the drought shadow continue? John referred to page 10 on Compact Development. There's much discussion on how much water there is in the Colorado River Basin to be developed. He shared Senator Isgar's thoughts that any further development of the Colorado River will jeopardize current development. There should be legislation so that future development of Colorado River waters should share a bigger burden if there is a call. Discussion on this is curtailed at the IBCC because the CWCB is currently doing a study on water availability in the upper Colorado. John also shared they discussed transbasin/trans-mountain diversion. They discussed that there should be a mitigation benefit for the basin from which water is being taken and making sure that basin's needs are taken care of. It could work under those conditions. Steve Harris asked for inputs on the vision statement: • "Status quo" needs to be more fleshed out. Does it mean the dry-up of ag lands for development and municipal needs? • Statement is vague and meaningless and should include preservation of agriculture. • We haven't looked on a basin level at what OUR basins' values are. • Can't meet both ag and M&I needs at the same time