Laserfiche WebLink
used as performance measures are developed and that the goals are not stand alone <br />statements. <br />Decisions and Major Points: Agreement on a revised vision statement was close by not final. The <br />revised vision statement will be retained as a draft and revisited as strategies are evaluated. The <br />proposed changes to the vision goals will be incorporated, retained as draft, and revisited as <br />strategies are evaluated. As the vision goals are used in the evaluation of water supply strategies <br />performance measures will be developed. <br />Discussion of CWCB Policy 18 <br />Over lunch, Jennifer Gimbel (Director of CWCB) led a discussion on Policy 18(the proposed Water <br />Management Partnership Program) and asked for feedback. <br />Senator Isgar asked if the IBCC members should take a position on Amendment 52 and Harris <br />Sherman said that would be appropriate. Senator Isgar asked that the IBCC oppose Amendment 52 <br />and the IBCC agreed unanimously. <br />Evaluation of Water Supply Strategies: <br />1. Compact Development and Transbasin Diversions <br />2. Agricultural Transfers <br />Nicole Rowan made a presentation outlining the trade-offs between agricultural transfers and new <br />water supply development (presentation attached). The presentation made a series of assumptions <br />and then analyzed the reductions in irrigated acres if 1) all future M&I needs are met from <br />agricultural transfers and 2) if there is a mix of new water supply development and agricultural <br />transfers. <br />The group then had a discussion on these two issues; compact development &transbasin diversions <br />and agricultural transfers. Harris Sherman led this discussion. The issues discussed and major <br />points include: <br />• How should ag transfers take place and can the impact to rural areas be reduced? T. Wright <br />Dickinson (Governor Appointment) asked to go back to the visioning document because he <br />felt that our audience is the broader. He advocated for retention of Ag for the state and <br />wants future analyzes to not presuppose agricultural transfers. <br />• Is it possible to find a win win situation for transbasin/mountain diversions? There was a <br />discussion of whether there is a further role for the West Slope to play for M&I in the Front <br />Range. Ray Wright (Rio Grande basin representative) discussed how the issues associated <br />with transbasin diversion are similar to those associated with ag transfers. The issue is on of <br />an economic future for the areas where the water is coming from. He asked people to <br />address issues of economic origin; i.e. how do we replace ag economies with others that will <br />take their place and ease the effect on the area. It's about a reliable economic future for the <br />area of origin. Stan Lazier (Colorado basin representative) added money does not replace <br />water in our economy. The basin of origin is looking for protection in some fashion. <br />• How does water for energy fit into both ag transfers and new water supply development? <br />Jeff Devere (YampalWhite basin representative) started off the discussion by saying they <br />should take energy off the table because he feels that you do not need to sacrifice any Ag, if <br />the appropriate storage mechanisms are put in place energy can be handled by the White