My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
River Protection Workgroup Process Corespondence
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
8001-9000
>
River Protection Workgroup Process Corespondence
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/5/2016 11:47:02 AM
Creation date
11/11/2015 10:08:24 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
Description
documents related to River Pretoection Workgroup (RPW) Steering Committee
State
CO
Basin
San Juan/Dolores
Water Division
7
Date
11/27/2006
Author
CWCB Staff, Dan Merriman
Title
River Protection Workgroup Process Corespondence
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Meeting
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Williams comments Page 1 of 1 <br /> Merriman, Dan <br /> From: Janice Sheftel Osheftel @mbssllp.com] <br /> Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 4:26 PM <br /> To: fearneng @rmi.net; ann_brown @salazar.senate.gov; bspear @mbssllp.com; Whitehead, Bruce; <br /> cwanner @frontier.net; Merriman, Dan;jtaylor034 @centurytel.net; MStiles @fs.fed.us <br /> Subject: Williams comments <br /> I spoke with John Folk Williams of the Center for Collaborative Policy. Below is a summary of his <br /> comments. He would be glad to review our next process draft. <br /> 1. Once we identify other stakeholders it would be a good idea for members of the Workgroup,or the <br /> facilitator and members, depending on how much money we have, to interview new people before the <br /> first meeting with the new stakeholders for several reasons. New stakeholders: <br /> a. will feel they have input into the design of the process and won't be strangers <br /> b. can provide suggestions of other stakeholders <br /> 2. Since we may be seeking federal legislation, include national environmental groups,which could <br /> throw a monkey wrench into the process, in the negotiations. (Failure to do this set back a Northern <br /> California local collaborative group.) National groups, if they are left out, may feel jealous of success, <br /> or feel threatened of success without them, or believe there can't be national solutions without them. <br /> The Northern California legislation did pass eventually. <br /> 3. A facilitator may cost $30,000 to $100,000 depending on the number of meetings and the amount <br /> of work between meetings. <br /> e-malled on behalf of Janice C. Sheftel by <br /> Suzanne P. Singley <br /> Secretary to Janice C. Sheftel <br /> Maynes, Bradford, Shipps&Sheftel, LLP <br /> 835 E. Second Avenue, Suite 123 <br /> P.O. Box 2717 <br /> Durango CO 81302 <br /> (970)247-1755 <br /> (970)247-8827-fax <br /> 11/28/2006 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.