Laserfiche WebLink
North Platte Basin Roundtable Meeting Minutes, 09.23.2008 3 <br />Kent C: When we started this, the vision statement was two pages. Someone <br />summarized it as trying to meet everyone's demands through cooperation. This is a <br />tough exercise. I tend to agree with Bill's comments. <br />Deb A: I'm at a loss on why they need this? What is its purpose? <br />Kent C: Because everyone wants a direction. We sit down there and kid ourselves. The <br />problem is population, and until that is controlled our water is going over that hill. I <br />think the visioning statement is just a tad too much pie-in-the-sky. To sustainably meet <br />all of the water supply needs for EVERYTHING is impossible. <br />Dave M: The cooperation part is nice, but it's not going to get anything done. There is <br />nothing said about the resources necessary to accomplish this. <br />Barb V: It does not mention energy, also does not consider legal framework. <br />Kent C: Dave, when you bring up resources, what do you mean by that? <br />Dave M: The water resources, and also the financial resources, etc. Saying we have <br />cooperation isn't going to accomplish anything except the warm and frizzy feeling. <br />Ty W: The water will come from agriculture. The state has decided that Ag is <br />expendable. <br />Kent C: If our Ag markets go away on Front Range, that hurts our economy here in <br />North Park, but when we bring in other projects, like Aaron Million's or Yampa <br />Pumpback, then we take away the free market situation, the willing-seller, willing-buyer <br />situation. <br />Kent C: I just want your feedback as to what the roundtable thinks about this thing <br />Barb V: Well, what is the value of this? What are they going to do with it? What are we <br />doing this exercise for? <br />Dave M: So all this is written up, then what? What is this going to change or facilitate? <br />Barb V: If it were enough to support the idea that the IBCC will continue, maybe it will <br />be worthwhile. <br />Hal H: The only good things that it could do is change the Colorado water court system <br />and streamline the state engineer's office, to change the nature of use-it-or-lose-it kind of <br />policies. No one's going to want to lose their water when it's worth $14,000 an acre foot <br />somewhere by conserving. Requiring augmentation plans for evaporative loss?? It's <br />nonsense. A willow is 4x what an open body of water is on evaporative loss. It was <br />unbelievable in engineer's and attorney's fees what it cost to do this. None of [their goals <br />are] going to happen if the water courts and the state engineer's office aren't changed in <br />some ways. <br />Deb A: That might be a red flag that needs to be raised. <br />Barb V: The only way this works is when the leadership lays down the groundwork, and <br />proves that it will have direction and mean something. <br />Kent C: The water supply in Colorado is no longer an undeveloped resource. It's now <br />limited, and has to be reallocated. There isn't new water out there. <br />Barb V: There is also annual variation. <br />Kent C: The statement is too warm and frizzy, it doesn't say anything