My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Meeting Minutes Oct. 29, 2007 Draft
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
8001-9000
>
Meeting Minutes Oct. 29, 2007 Draft
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/5/2016 12:27:50 PM
Creation date
11/11/2015 10:08:30 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
12/2/2007
Author
RPW
Title
Meeting Minutes Oct. 29, 2007 Draft
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.
/
4
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
useful to make something happen. Therefore, to be useful,has to be a community project. <br /> What do we want to know from the public? What does public want to know from Committee? <br /> What does Committee want to share? What will help the public to explore ideas? What will <br /> Community process need from Committee - compelling issues, some options. <br /> Community to identify unique/special values, different ways to protect them. <br /> Recognize that different constituencies have different ideas. Need to blend them together. <br /> Various stakeholders decide on the actions to be taken to protect values. Balance how to reach <br /> consensus. How avoid stakeholders getting out of balance? Not open too broadly. Need <br /> balance in public process. <br /> All in the process play a role in developing foreseeable solutions. Need broad public. <br /> Committee, in its current role, can't determine solutions <br /> Broader umbrella- stakeholders have specific interests to be recognized. Look to broaden <br /> community group. <br /> Prevent small groups from hijacking the process. Need to maintain framework for options <br /> Invite broad group of stakeholders. They will talk to their memberships <br /> Voices (perspective/viewpoint) vs. groups. <br /> People left out will let Committee know. <br /> [Public comment - already represented?] <br /> Invite recognized interests and open all meetings to the public to make sure all views included. <br /> Not exclude anyone. Be responsive to what happens <br /> Process will be messier if more open at the beginning but people will be willing to work because <br /> think important/likely to result in something. <br /> Public perspective - ask public to identify who would be good members. Who not at table. <br /> What interests need to be there? Who else needs to be there? <br /> Ask participants for commitment of time for series of meetings? <br /> Part of Product- summary of benefits and disadvantages of different protections. Evaluate <br /> current protections. <br /> From Sweep process: First issue- what needs protecting? <br /> 2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.