Laserfiche WebLink
provided their comments on the draft discussion paper : <br /> Herrick Roth, John Baer, Michael Blair, Carl Bernkiau, and Tess <br /> McNulty . Various questions were posed by Board members to <br /> these people and discussion on certain of the points raised by <br /> them ensued . <br /> There being no other persons who wished to address the <br /> Board , Chairman Robbins asked Mr . McDonald how he would <br /> recommend that the Board proceed . Mr . McDonald indicated that <br /> he felt that there were two questions which the Board needed to <br /> address : <br /> ( 1) What changes to make to the paper, and <br /> (2) that steps to take in bringing the paper to completion? <br /> He also indicated that in his opinion the persons who had <br /> spoken to the Board at the January meeting and this meeting <br /> fully represented the range of views and reflected all of the <br /> major points which had been raised by those who had provided <br /> written comments to Mr . McDonald . Thus , he felt that the Board <br /> was in a position to proceed with its discussion at this time <br /> having heard a representative range of public comment . <br /> In light of this , Mr . McDonald indicated that the first <br /> thing the Board should decide is whether to handle the proposed <br /> discussion paper only as a statement of the issues to be <br /> addressed , or as a statement of position on the questions posed <br /> in the last couple of pages of the current draft . It was his <br /> suggestions that the former course of action would be <br /> preferable in order that the paper could be finalized and <br /> adopted at the March Board meeting and made available in a <br /> timely manner . He further suggested that the Board could then <br /> consider how it might wish to proceed to develop a position on <br /> the questions which the discussion paper would identify as in <br /> need of answers . <br /> Discussion ensued as to which of the options outlined by <br /> Mr . McDonald should be adopted . It was concluded by consensus <br /> that the Board should seek to finalize the discussion paper by <br /> the March meeting as only a statement of the issues to be <br /> addressed, with further discussion and deliberation after that <br /> time as to what position, if any , the Board might want to take <br /> on the issues concerning future water resources development in <br /> Colorado . <br /> Mr . Getches then inquired of Mr . McDonald as to what <br /> substantive changes in the draft discussion paper he would <br /> propose be made in light of the public comment which had been <br /> received and the discussion which the Board had had with those <br /> who had addressed the Board . Mr . McDonald suggested that three <br /> major changes be made : <br />