Laserfiche WebLink
Water Conservation Board (Guru II, 10129!91). It was this document that provided the basis for <br />categorical rank-ordering by the group at its first plenary dialogue. <br />Using this issues list, the group resolved to organize it into four action categories, as <br />follows: <br />Category I - Critical; necessary to work on now, although ultimate resolution may or may not <br />be within the purview of GURU II. <br />Category II - Work on Next;, (although work may already be in progress by some GURU II <br />members or other RIP parties). <br />Category III - Work on Later; long-term issues not susceptible to immediate resolution <br />Category IV -Non-issues ; at least at this time. <br />The group performed an initial sorting of substantive issues by these categories <br />at the February plenary meeting. Upon circulation of the group memory record to Guru II <br />members subsequent to the meeting and further refinement/correction of the sorting record, the <br />following categorical issues sort emerged from the group -- re-stated not as impediments to RIP <br />success but asaction-oriented questions on problems that may need to be solved in order for that <br />success to occur (CPPSC, 4128/92). <br />3.2.2.1. Category I ("Work on First"). <br />Uncertainties in Flow Recommendations. How can the Colorado Water <br />Conservation Board (CWCB) address the uncertainties in the quantity of flow <br />recommendations (e.g., use of professional judgment when cause and effect <br />relationships are imprecise or poorly understood, application of methodologies <br />that yield uncertain results, application of different methodologies for different <br />river reaches, consistency of methodologies)? In so doing, how can the CWCB <br />3-2 <br />