7999

• UCREFRP Catalog Number: 7999
• Author: Colorado River Wildlife Council.
• Title: Minutes, Colorado River Fish & Wildlife Council.
• USFW Year: 1996.
• USFW - Doc Type: April 23-24, 1996.
• Copyright Material: NO

t
t

1
1

1?

1
1
t
r

resources. Then, representatives of these stakeholders met
together to discuss the issues and problems which had been
brought forward. This meeting, as could be imagined, was a
discussion of the most major of concerns and problems along
the system. Many groups, especially the water user type of
groups, remained very suspicious of motives of the GCT and
the USBR. The Trust's position is that it will only attempt
to assimilate concerns and not attempt to come up with any
recommendations.
Mr. Moody considered the meetings fulfilled their
objectives. There were representatives from every major
user or stakeholder of the Colorado Basin. None of the
groups made up over approximately 10% of the total group.
The Trust had seven authors provide papers on seven major
issues. Part of the workshop was to allow breakout meetings
by groups of participants to read, review and comment on the
authors' points of view on these most contentious issues.
GCT felt that this provided a valuable method because the
different groups did listen carefully to views and fully
discuss them. A proceeding of the workshop will be provided
for all stakeholders as well as the USBR about mid-May.
These proceedings will contain the subjects, flip charts,
and discussions with little or no commentary. There will
also be a final report after GCT contacts all participants
of the workshop and asks for their comments on the
observations coming out of the study. The intent is to
provide USBR with the best thinking on issues from the
various points of view of every stakeholder having an idea
of what should happen in the basin. The GCT believes that
perhaps an amalgamation or synthesis will emerge to identify
and define what is, in fact, occurring everyday along the
basin. Mr. Moody shared with the group some of the insights
that came from this past year's work.
1) There was great overlap in thinking, discussions
and concerns of each of the different groups.
2) One of the most important ideas which came up once
again was a discussion of the levels of risk of taking an
action counteracted by levels of certainty an action would
be "good" given the differing and rapidly changing points of
view of agencies, organizations, legislative and judicial.
3) The issue of funding the many programs is of
critical importance, especially in context of the role
hydropower is playing. More creative approaches to funding
need to be found. Who has the responsibilities for funding
and how far should these responsibilities go in relationship
to others who also have such responsibilities?
9