BOARD00191

• Board Meeting Date: 3/21/2002
• Description: WSP Section - Agricultural Water Policy Discussion
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

, .

. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
. 24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
. 46

DRAFT

Harold Miskel- we could stay until 6 or 7 and have a debate now,

Dan McAuliffe - Getting more input from other people is important. Today we had a
room full of farmers. Thursday, we're going to be going over the strategic plan, We
need to be thinking about what we're going to be doing with the strategic plan. Maybe
more meetings, more information, summarizing, matching up within our regulatory
charges, showing what the gaps are and what agency responsibility is, you could then let
us know how to fill in the gaps,

Don Ament - we could work with the Ag Commission, much of this is in their bailiwick,
Maybe before the Ag Commission meets we could get together and have a group
discussion.

Ray Wright - I agree, I would like some time for this board to argue and brainstorm this
in a very unstructured manner, because I find that a good way of arriving at decisions. So
finding a way for the Board to sit down and brainstorm this is a good idea,

Steve Miller - When you say go down to the Arkansas, that's me, but I would like some
direction on how I can contribute. It would be good to get some signals from the Board
on how to address issues. Difficult to participate without this,

Rod Kuharich - we're in an information gathering situation now. There are somethings
that came out clear and strong. Maintaining Ag is very strong. Protecting personal
property rights is strong, Otherwise, we are in an info gathering mode, bring that back to
the Board and let the Board determine how best to help.

Eric Wilkinson - If I had to today say something in regard to what the Board should do,
I would say look at the water supply, because that's where we can help, and that's where
the pressure is. Do we as a Board need to try and provide alternatives to stop the
conversion of Ag, to provide more benefit from existing supplies, or find new supplies
that are an economic benefit, better than converting Ag? I think that's where the focus
should be.

Harold Miskel- I agree, I suggest if we are going to go forward and consider adopting a
policy of some kind, I see the Ag water issues as part of a bigger issue, and that is the
overall water supply for all of Colorado. Ifwe adopt a position, it should be on a future
water supply for Colorado, which Ag transfers would be an element of. My sense is if
we try to take a stance on these issues, we're probably be very divided, I'm pro Ag
transfers. We all know there are impacts that occur, and maybe we should be focusing on
the impacts and how to make it less painful, but don't stop Ag transfers. That's what
makes Colorado great. So I'm simply saying, this is a big issue. I think we need more
input from a lot of people from a lot more places. We should not rush into this.

Don Schwindt - I think what you and Eric said should be part of our policy. Issues
aren't as black and white as some have painted them, I think we can come to agreement

17