Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~ <br />M <br />00 <br /> <br /> <br />,..- u... -/ 'f t~~ V. Vt,.,.( '\ A" r <br /> <br />.............. <br />/, li- 1 <br />{". .{ j)l' <br />P"I' IIp.. 'I <br /> <br />- >c-----_.___40 <br />"'}I; I <br />V N I \>r,'1t SIT Y 0 F CO!. 0 It ADO A 1 Il 0 li L)) E It <br /> <br />lJol/lder, Colorado 80309 <br /> <br />~(Q)(Py <br /> <br />INSTITUTE OF nEIIAVIO/lH, S"II:Nr~ <br />January 17, "977 <br /> <br />James Monaghan <br />Office of the Governor <br />State Capitol <br />Denver, Colorado 80203 <br /> <br /> <br />Dear Jim: <br /> <br />OEf'AflTMEiiT OF <br />NATURAL RESOURCES <br /> <br />The draft PCC report on Savery-Pothook, postmarked December 27 <br />finally arrived on January 4. The second copy sent by bus has yet <br />to arrive. By now the report has gone to Harris Sherman, so any <br />revisions I might suggest would be worthless. However, for the <br />record I believe that the report faithfully records the PCC deliber- <br />ations and I would not have proposed any important changes. <br /> <br />I would like to take the opportunity to comment upon the way <br />in which the PCC review' was conducted, under the assumption that it <br />was not strictly ad hoc, but rather an experiment in policy formula- <br />tion in general and but one phase in the.continuing evolution of <br />state water policy in particular. <br /> <br />First, I must report that I felt considerable frustration <br />with some aspects of my own participation in this exercise. I <br />found myself feeling schizoid during the review, and even more so <br />aftenvards as I reflected upon it. I tried to play the role of <br />the technical advisor who sets his own values aside and simply <br />responds on the technical aspects within his area of competence. <br />Yet I found this hard to do, because I do have strong values which <br />I couldn't express, because the issues were eventually defined in <br />such a way that most of my technical competence waS irrelevant and <br />I didn't get a chance to use it, and because I sensed that the PCC <br />itself really ,,'a...,ted something more than technical jUdgement, yet <br />something less than advocacy. <br /> <br />At this point I think that I failed you in being too restrained. <br />An advocacy position would have been inappropriate, but it should <br />have been possible to state matters clearly without pressing them. <br />I didn't do so, partly because of my own internal conflict and partly <br />because Roy managed the discussion on our last day so as to make it <br />difficult to do so. For the future, if outsiders are called upon, <br />perhaps their roles should be made quite clear at the outset. For <br />now, I can do no more than apologize for not assisting you effectively. <br />