Laserfiche WebLink
<br />.. <br /> <br />.. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />WATER DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE <br /> <br />We have proposed establishment of a, "Water Development <br />Committee" in each Water Division to determine both the "Water <br />Development Projections" and any "Reasonably Foreseeable Water <br />Development Needs." Subsequently, it has been suggested that one <br />committee may be preferable. The following are some advantages and <br />disadvantages we see to each approach. <br /> <br />* A committee in each Division would be smaller and allow <br />for more local input. <br />* There should be less disagreement and less opportunity <br />for a lot of positioning. <br />* After each Division has developed input, a conference <br />committee with representatives from each Division may be <br />necessary to arrive at final values. <br />* If only one committee is deemed to be most appropriate, <br />that committee could be the Colorado River Policy <br />Advisory Committee which is already in place. <br />* It may be more difficult to gain consensus with just one <br />committee. <br />* If the ~dvisory Committee is used, some interests may not <br />be represented and the committee might need to be <br />expanded. <br /> <br />DUTIES <br /> <br />1. The Committee or Committees would be chaired by a CWCB <br />member or members. The chair and CWCB staff would select <br />the init.ial committee members. The size will be limited <br />to no more than 15 and contain balanced representation <br />from agriculture, industry, municipal, recreation and <br />environmental interests. <br />2. The Committee (s) would be asked to identify what full <br />build out depletions in the basin might look like as will <br />as any reasonably foreseeable development which may occur <br />in the next 5-years. The Committee (s) would need to <br />arrive at a consensus position on what the ultimate level <br />of compact development should be and what is meant by <br />"generous" with respect to that level of development. <br />3. The Committee(s) would need to decide on whether to use <br />a water rights priority approach as we suggested <br />initially or a demand approach which has been suggested. <br />4. Once. questions 2 and 3 are answered, the appropriate <br />process outlined below can be refined and work on <br />developing the values begun. <br /> <br />WATER RIGHTS PRIORITY APPROACH <br /> <br />The Water Rights Priority approach is fairly well outlined in <br />the "Plan of Study" which was provided to you March 17, 1994. It <br />is a further refinement of the paper Gene Jencsok and Randy Seaholm <br />prepared for the Board on November 4, 1991. We believe this <br /> <br />COW 0144 J <br />