Laserfiche WebLink
Harold Evans: Encouraged by what Todd Doherty is asking for. We need <br />to get our needs assessment to the point that verifies that we have <br />concluded we have no unappropriated water, so that the things that we <br />have asked show that we have finalized our studies so we are ready to <br />look at our alternatives. Our WSRA do not answer any- of our M&I <br />supplies, thus, we need to finalize the demand piece of our needs <br />assessment, go on record with this, then be readv to address strategies. <br />Todd Doherty-: The needs assessments provide sound reason for asking <br />for examination of alternatives, such as transbasin diversions. <br />Harold Evans: Time to publish our needs assessment. <br />Mike Shimmin: Recognizes need to finalize this document. Hope is that <br />IBCC will know what studies are in the planning and implementation <br />process of CWCB/DNR plans on studies before we are able to add to the <br />list of what needs to be studied. Request, therefore, for planning study <br />schedule. <br />Todd Doherty-: Looking at about a 4-6 month plan, info is there, need is <br />to package it in a useful manner. Currently in the process of developing <br />how to go about this. Maybe by December, no promises. <br />Tom Iseman: Agree with Harold's point that kve need the consumptive <br />needs report in order, but also need non-consumptive needs developed, <br />this is a fundamental piece that must be on the table so that we see what <br />needs are there for sustaining environment and recreational pieces. <br />Janet Bell: As observer, seems as though State is asking roundtables to <br />go forward so that we can put evaluations back on the table which the <br />legislature has taken away-. Having looked at the funding concerns <br />coming into the process, how does State see all this "vorkcing? Are we <br />asking the roundtables to get this done because of legislature's inability- <br />to do so? <br />Bill Jerke: Funding? <br />Todd Doherty-: WSRA has been unfrozen, however, we are trying to get <br />other sources unfrozen. Because we are not generally- funded, we are <br />more optimistic. Currently-, contract with CDM is somewhat limited but <br />optimistic this will also gothrough. Question is whatever this basin's <br />priority-, we will use this as a tool to prioritize. State is not pushing one <br />particular set of options. <br />Frank Eckhardt: One thing to note: land that has been dried up has not <br />been taken care of, and our ditch companies spending lots of money- to <br />deal with the weeds. Cities and State have obligation to deal with this. <br />Bill Jerke: Carried legislation that the people who did dryup, had <br />obligation to take care of weeds. <br />Bill Jerke: Need to come to conclusion as to the question that Todd has <br />posed. Do we need to address a working group to come back to the <br />roundtable as per these alternatives: how structured and how- posed. Or <br />do we need to focus on the needs assessment? <br />Mike Shimmin: Suggestion: Task Order -xyordsmithing needs to be a Step <br />One, this can be used as a launching point that expresses our priorities. <br />Harold Evans: As per prioritizing for Todd, would be helpful to have <br />access to work done for SWASI Phase II, much work done, but never <br />published. Would be useful if this were made available to this <br />Roundtable. <br />Bill Jerke: SWASI Phase 11 presentation?