Laserfiche WebLink
3. SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES: <br />ANALYSIS AND ACTION <br />3.1. Overview. <br />For simplicity's sake, this report has been organized into chapters on process and <br />substance, with the previous chapter emphasizing primarily the evolution of rules by which the <br />group agreed to govern itself, how it approached analysis of the substantive issues before it, and <br />what guidelines should inform its deliberations in the future. In contrast, this chapter describes <br />the substance of Guru II deliberations. However, process and substance are inextricably <br />intertwined, and the following description of substantive developments will necessarily overlap <br />m a review of process as well. <br />Among the more significant events in the analysis of and action on issues of substance <br />during the spring and summer of 1992 were Guru II's rank-ordering of issues in terms of their <br />importance and the immediacy with which they should be addressed, the derivation of a process <br />for addressing issues related to the Colorado River compacts, and the identification of river- <br />specific water acquisition strategies for endangered fish habitat. Action taken in each of these <br />three areas is described below, supported as appropriate by reference to items in the Directory of <br />Documents at the beginning of this report. <br />3.2. Ranking of Substantive Issues. <br />3.2.1. Category Definitions. An important early step in Guru II's progress and the <br />subject of significant effort at its first plenary meeting in February of 1992 was achieving a <br />threshold level of consensus on the question of which issues were most in need of immediate <br />attention and action. Earlier efforts at doing this had already been made by individual group <br />members (e.g.,Wigington, 10/24/91). An expanded version of this early issues statement was <br />prepared immediately thereafter, in keeping with the decision format followed by the Colorado <br />3-1 <br />