Arkansas Basin Roundtable

More pics of Canon City Vermilion Flycatcher

2011-05-04T23:17:00.002-06:00

Though with the 400mm lens I use, a 1.4 extender and the multiplier for my dslr camera because it is not 'full frame', which gives the equivalent of about 900 mm (about 18 X the normal view) zoom, the Vermilion Flycatcher was too distant for very good pics (and it was 6:30 pm so the lighting wasn't good either). The pics were taken from about 90 feet but when I tried to get 20 feet closer the bird fly further away. I tried unsuccessfully to refind her. However, the darkish mask and streaked underparts are visible. And the bird dipped it's tail, phoebe-like, which is the first thing I saw that with it's light coloration made me think this was a Vermilion. The light yellowish wash on it's lower belly and vent area instead of a salmon/pinkish coloration is indicative of first year birds. SeEtta

Female Vermilion Flycatcher visiting Canon City,CO area

2011-05-04T23:08:00.003-06:00

Late today I spotted this first year female Vermilion Flycatcher in the Canon City,CO area. A rarity here and much of Colorado, there have been only 1 or 2 other records since I found the first Vermilion which was also a first year female. Two more pics to come. SeEtta

South East Colorado Water Conservation District

2006-03-13T09:38:00.000-07:00

Thanks SeEtta for getting me squared away!
I just wanted to give the web site for the South East Colorado Water Conservation District, where all kinds of information can be found on the Frying Pan-Arkansas project. It has the law, history, projections of what is coming up and all kinds of interesting and valuable information.

It is : http://www.secwcd.org

Does the Roundtable have any real value

2006-03-12T13:50:00.000-07:00

Although we accomplished our first objective of setting Bylaws by their approval at our last Basin Roundtable meeting (we accomplished our second objective by electing our IBCC representatives earlier), the issue was raised about what we are doing in the Roundtable.

Having just read the "Agreements Between Roundtables" Issue Paper that comes from the second meeting of the IBCC, I thought there were several items salient to the discussion of the potential value of the Roundtable process. Following is the last section of that Issue Paper on "Value Added" that may be helpful in discussing what we are doing here. SeEtta:

"Value Added
Entities already have the power to enter into negotiated agreements and the Interbasin Compact Process does not provide regulatory or binding powers to the roundtables or the IBCC. So what value does this process add? The Interbasin Compact Process achieves a number of objectives adding value to authorities that already exist:

· Organizational structure
Although entities have always had the power to enter into negotiated agreements, there has never been an organizational structure through which to approach negotiations. The roundtables and the IBCC offer this forum and an organizational structure which entities can choose to use.

· Political support
Even though roundtables do not have regulatory or binding authority, they do represent a strong political base. Because of the diversity of interests represented on the roundtables, agreements reached through this process will have the value of early input from many parties, and should have broad support.

·Alternative venue
Roundtables and the IBCC provide an alternative venue to address issues of concern surrounding a water deal/project. Historically, issues of concern have been raised either in water court or through a permitting process. As a deal or project reached the point where a permit or action in water court was needed, entities with concerns would raise those issues as objectors. This process has proved costly and time consuming. The Interbasin Compact Process does not replace the jurisdiction of the courts or change permitting authority; but if concerns of would be objectors are dealt with through the Interbasin Compact Process, the time and cost of permitting and court proceedings may be reduced.
· Trust
In order to enter negotiations entities need to conclude that they will be better off negotiating than not negotiating. They also need to conclude that their needs will not be subordinated. The openness and broad-based participation of the Interbasin Compact Process fosters this.

· Resources
Negotiating entities often have a disparity of resources and information. The Interbasin Compact Process can offer the resources and common information basis to allow productive negotiations."

2006-03-12T13:31:00.000-07:00

Bylaws draft-hopefully final-

2006-03-01T23:59:00.000-07:00

You can read the most recent,and hopefully final, draft of Bylaws for the Arkansas Basin Roundtable here then clicking on the Bylaws. This includes a section on Disclosure located in Article VI, Section 3 that our Subcommittee worked out.

The full Roundtable will vote on these at our next meeting on March 9 (see post below for details)

I believe that our Roundtable has taken our job very seriously and thus has taken longer than the other Roundtables to work on Bylaws which the bylaws subcommittee effected in a truly collaborative process. I am especially proud that we were able to include a section on Disclosure, which is unique to our Roundtable.
SeEtta

Ark Roundtable 3-8-06 meeting notice

2006-02-28T00:17:00.000-07:00

Please note new location

Meeting Notice

The seventh meeting of the Arkansas Basin Roundtable formed under the Colorado Water for the 21st Century Act will be held in Pueblo, Colorado.

Date: Wednesday, March 08, 2006
Time: 12:30 p.m. – 3:00 p.m.
Location: Colorado State University
Cooperative Extension, Southern Region
Pueblo Occhiato University Center
2200 Bonforte Boulevard, LW-331
Pueblo, Colorado

Directions: Coming from the North or South

At Interstate 25 Exit Ramp 101 (Intersection of I-25 and US Highway 50), take Colorado 47 East.

On Colorado 47, travel East for approximately 3 miles to the Troy Avenue Exit. You will see the University on the left as you approach the exit. (Go past the Bonforte Blvd. Exit and through the underpass, Troy is the next exit you will come to.)

Exit, get in the Left Lane. You will come to a left hand turn (the road will veer to the left, follow this). Get in the right lane and make a right at the intersection. You will see a large building with a metal roof and a red awning, this is the gymnasium. Go past the gym to North 2 or 3 parking lots, located west of the gym. Park in any of the white striped parking spaces, campus parking will not be ticketing in these lots the day of the meeting.

Enter the University Center on the South side of the building, or the East doors directly into the East Ballroom.

All roundtable meetings are open and the public is encouraged to attend.

What is "our" interest

2006-02-21T21:33:00.000-07:00

I always appreciate the efforts Gary puts into the Roundtable but I have a very different perception of what constitutes "our" interests. That which is in the best interest of one family may well be not in the interest of another family--I think that is why we are in the bad shape we are in. And that is also why I think it is essential that persons be made responsible to declare their interests. Again, as I said in above examples, we might have someone who ostensibly is representing the interests of the group they were elected/appointed to represent, but they promote a project that is opposite those known interests because they have some personal financial interest that is not known--this may well be in the interest of their family as they may make hundreds of thousands of dollars from the project, but it is not something that is in the interest of their group or this basin.

So I must disagree with Gary's propositions. Although he makes a case for assuming everyone has pure motives to promote what is best for the basin, that is clearly unrealistic. I cannot understand why anyone who is concerned for the interests of the basin as a whole would have any objections to a rule that says people are responsible to disclose other interests. If no one ends up with these other interests, then there would be no need for disclosure and no issue. I think that finding out later that people hid their personal interests would be what sabotages this process.
SeEtta

What is our interest?

2006-02-21T11:33:00.000-07:00

I appreciate what SeEtta has written about conflict of interest. I like the idea that disclosure is at the core of our dealing with conflicts and that such disclosure is deemed a "responsibility" of membership. My question on her approach comes from the language defining interests. Can it be reasonably assumed that our interest in participating in the roundtable is to find those ideas, and resulting structural and non-structural projects, that best serve our common interest as a basin? In other words, if we assume everyone is there to advocate for an individual perspective or interest I don't think we are going to make any progress. If, on the other hand, we envision ourselves as being participants in a roundtable with the collective interest of the basin at heart, we may find areas of agreement and cooperation. Therefore, our disclosure of interests should be those which benefit us or our family members, not interests that diverge from our "appointed" ones. Let's have our participation on the Roundtable be guided by what is good for the basin and the State of Colorado in the face of inevitable growth and change. We can try to shape that change to preserve our community values, rather than bring our individual axes for grinding.

Disclosure-my recommended modification

2006-02-12T22:16:00.000-07:00

Following is my recommended modification (changed text in italics) to the disclosure clause recommended by Gary Barber:

Section 3. Disclosure of Interests. The validity of consensus is derived from the collective understanding of each Member concerning both the issue and the perspective of fellow Members on that issue. It is realized that Members may have interests other than those for which they have been appointed or elected to the Roundtable, and that these may influence how the Member stands and presents positions on issues. In the interest of transparency required for effective decision making, it is the responsibility of each Member to disclose any substantive interest outside of the identified interest for which the Member is serving on the Roundtable that the Member, or the immediate members of the Member's family, has/have in matters that are the subject in Policy Decisions

SeEtta

Arkansas Basin Roundtable

2006-02-07T06:31:00.000-07:00

Arkansas Basin Roundtable
I think the By-laws Committee has done a great job of wrestling with some difficult issues and should be commended. It is imperative that the roundtable now begin to identify the intrabasin and interbasin issues that concern the Arkansas in order that Alan and I can present them to the IBCC.
jeris

Disclosure

2006-02-05T19:19:00.000-07:00

Although I believe that if the Roundtables become effective in Colorado water decisions, as they are so invisioned, that such statutorily derived definitions of "conflict of interest" will be essential to the integrity of decision making, for the sake of compromise I can live with a Bylaws section on disclosure. However, if disclosure will only be "recommended" I cannot reconcile why we would also not use the same language (recommend instead of require) for attendance at Roundtable meetings.

The only reason that attendance is crucial to the Roundtables is related to their becoming effective in Colorado water decisions. If disclosure is sufficiently unimportant that it can be "recommended" instead of "required", then so should attendance at Roundtable meetins. On the other hand if we believe that attendance at meetings is sufficiently crucial to an "effective" Roundtable process, then so should disclosure and it should be "required" not merely "recommended".

SeEtta

Conflict or Disclosure of Interest?

2006-01-30T18:24:00.000-07:00

I had a nice chat with SeEtta, who showed my how to post to the blog, concerning "Conflict of Interest" after our bylaw committee meeting. Like many terms of art, I think the phrase Conflict of Interest has a specific meaning in governmental law. I believe what we are seeking is Disclosure of Interests to help inform our discussion. To that end, I have added a Section 3, Article VI DECISION MAKING, in Draft #2 of the bylaws stating:

Section 3. Disclosure of Interests. The validity of consensus is derived from the collective understanding of each Member concerning both the issue and the perspective of fellow Members on that issue. Therefore, each Member is strongly encouraged to disclose any individual or representative interests pertinent to an issue at the earliest point in the Roundtable process.

My effort at a middle ground.

Another scenario of conflict of interest

2006-01-29T15:01:00.000-07:00

As stated above each of us on the Roundtable is identified with an interest--county or municiple representative, agriculture interests, recreation interests, industrial interests, water rights owners, environmental interests, etc. However, someone who represents a county may also be a major water rights owner in a ditch company.

So another possible scenario:

Joe Blow is ostensibly on the Roundtable representing agricultural interests. There is a proposal to build a small dam to facilitate water transfers to a front range city in another basin. So the Roundtable asks Joe Blow if this proposed dam presents any problems for the agricultural interests he represents.

Unknown to the other Roundtable members, Joe Blow's wife has purchased most of the land on which the dam will be built (done under her maiden name so it is not well known in the community) and this is going to be a major economic windfall for Joe and his family. Joe says the proposed dam will present no problems for the farmers in area and they are not that concerned that they don't have any storage rights in it. So the Roundtable recommends that the dam project and our IBCC rep negotiates with the city in the other basin that wants to use this dam with the understanding that it will not harm our basin.

Due to the publicity surrounding the IBCC negotiations, other farmers in the affected area make complaints to the CWCB and the press. They are angry because this dam will have negative impacts on them and they are angry because they now believe that the Arkansas Basin Roundtable sold them when recommending the dam project.

Even if the dam project is stopped, the farmers who were impacted and many others who read about this lose confidence in the Roundtable. The Roundtable loses its ability to do any negotiating or resolving of differences in the basin because many interests do not trust the Roundtable process because it doesn't even ask its members to disclose conflicts of interest.

Additionally when the Roundtable confronts Joe Blow, he rightfully says he had no obligation to inform the Roundtable of this as there was no conflict of interest disclosure requirement. Since he didn't violate any rule, the Roundtable was unable to get sufficient votes to remove Joe Blow as Roundtable member.
SeEtta Moss

Response to emails

2006-01-29T14:46:00.000-07:00

In a recent email between subcommittee members it was said that since the Basin Roundtables were not convened to have any powers to change anything, there is no need for a conflict of interest section. I would submit that though the Basin Roundtables do not have any direct authority to change things they have significant roles in the following:
--"shall propose projects or methods for meeting" the water needs of the basin--I believe that particular duty could be significant in terms of which projects/methods move forward

--"As needed, establish Roundtable subcommittees or other mechanisms to facilitate dialogue and resolution of issues and conflicts within the basin In order to resolve issues and conflicts it is essential for us to know who is representing which interests.

--And our Roundtable not only picks our IBCC representatives, who are charged with negotiating interbasin compacts, but removing them if they do not properly represent the interests of this basin.

--Additionally, if we don't think the Roundtable is going to have any meaningful weight in decisions why are we all spending all this time in Roundtable and subcommittee meetings?

In regard to the issue raised that each of us is here to represent an interest: that is my point, members of the Roundtable or their immediate family may have interests that are not those they are identified with. I will give another example of a possible conflict of interest in the next posting. And frankly, I cannot fathom why putting a conflict of interest section in our Bylaws is being construed as something negative.
SeEtta Moss

More on proposed Conflict of Interest in Bylaws

2006-01-24T22:43:00.000-07:00

It is my belief that a good conflict of interest section would not only not impair the ability of our Roundtable to work cooperatively in a consensus building mode, but I think it would improve it. I think that people are more able to work cooperatively when there is some assurance that they will not be coopted by some stealth interests of which they are unaware.

It might be helpful if I gave an example, albeit one that is totally made up. So let's say that I, the person that this Roundtable elected as the environmental representative supported the sale of all the water in the Lowline Ditch to the new suburb of Aurora-Limon, a growing metropolitan city of 1/2 million residents. Though concerns had been noted about the environmental impacts of drying up all the agricultural fields supported by the Lowline Ditch, I discounted these and claimed that there would be no harm to the environment. Some Roundtables members decided that if the environmental rep saw no environmental problem they would vote to have our IBCC reps work on an inter-basin agreement to sell all the water from the Lowline Ditch to Limon.

Unknown to Roundtable members, my mother held a significant number of shares in the Lowline Ditch and stood to make a profit of a million dollars on this sale. (for the record, my mother has been deceased for over 15 years, never lived in Colo and never ownen any water shares) And it turns out that drying up all the ag fields was indeed terrible for the environment and ultimately caused a loss of topsoils and contributed to dust storms caused by the continuing droughts.

So what do you think that would do to the trust and cooperative work of the Roundtable? I think it would destroy it. Though clearly an exaggerated tale, this is the kind of conflict of interest that needs to be disclosed and for which the party needs to remove themselves from voting if not from making recommendations too.
SeEtta

Post from Gary Barber

2006-01-24T20:17:00.000-07:00

Posted at request of Gary Barber:

"SeEtta: I read your posting. The issue looks entirely different to me, it
seems you are trying to take the "wet out of the ocean." By that I mean that
everyone in the room has an "interest," hence the requirement by the statute
that the Roundtable include out of basin water right's holders as nonvoting
members. As we get to know each other, the interests will become apparent.
Whatever consensus we achieve needs to be arrived at by having everyone one in
the
room, not restricting the debate. Otherwise, we are headed for what Thomas
Jefferson deemed "the tyranny of the majority."

I perceive conflict of interest to be an issue of monetary compensation
derived from a potential proposed project. My understanding of the Roundtable
process is to bring our narrow interests directly into conflict in a crucible
that
produces a solution that serves the basin. To achieve that end, all voices
need to stay in the same room. GB"

Need a confllict of interest section in Bylaws

2006-01-23T19:33:00.000-07:00

One of the major issues for organizations, both governmental and even non-profits, in recent years is violations of conflict of interest. And this is related to the erosion of public confidence. I believe that the Arkansas Basin Roundtable needs a conflict of interest section in our Bylaws and recommend the following that I have modified from "Water for the People", a part of the American Waterworks Association:

>>The Arkansas Basin Roundtable realizes that a conflict of interest may exist when the interests or concerns of any officer, or member, or said person's immediate family, or any party, group, or organization to which said person has allegiance, may be seen as competing with the interests or concerns of this organization.

Any possible conflict of interest shall be disclosed to the Roundtable by the person concerned. When any such conflict of interest is relevant to a matter requiring action by the Roundtable, the interested person shall not vote on the matter, and shall retire from the room in which the Roundtable (or its committee) is meeting and shall not participate in the final deliberation or decision regarding the matter under consideration. This shall also apply to actions that may be taken by those elected as Interbasin Roundtable Compact Committee representatives.<<
SeEtta Moss

January 6 Roundtable meeting

2006-01-11T19:39:00.000-07:00

The participants at the January Roundtable meeting held a revote on the second Interbasin representative and Jeris Danielson was elected again. The other Interbasin rep is Alan Hamel.

The Roundtable decided to hold regularly scheduled meetings on the second Wednesday of each month, meeting monthly at this time. The meetings will now start at 12:30 and end at 3:00. They will still be held at the Pueblo Convention Center for at least the next several meetings. All Roundtable meetings are open to the public.
SeEtta Moss

Roundtable meeting on Monday, January 9

2006-01-07T22:18:00.000-07:00

The next Arkansas Basin Roundtable meeting will be this Monday, January 9. We will meet as scheduled fro 1:00 to 3:30 pm at the Convention Center in Pueblo.

Member of the public are invited to attend. All Arkansas Basin Roundtable meetings are public meetings. This blog should be more active now that the Roundtable meetings are resuming after the holidays.
SeEtta Moss

Interbasin Representatives election problem

2006-01-07T21:47:00.000-07:00

The Bylaws Subcommittee agreed to conduct the election of the Arkansas Basin interbasin representatives in a stepwise fashion and presented this to the December Roundtable meeting. The full Roundtable voted to accept this election rule. During the subsequent election of interbasin representatives, we followed the procedure in electing Alan Hamel on the 1st vote. We also followed the rule in the 2nd vote by eliminating one of the candidates who failed to get sufficient votes. Unfortunately we subsequently failed to follow the rule in determining that Jeris Danielson was the second interbasin representative.

At the Bylaws Subcommittee meeting yesterday, the consensus of our group agreed that due to this failure to follow the election rules in the Bylaws it was necessary to conduct a revote the election of the second interbasin representative. Since Alan Hamel's election as the 1st interbasin representative elected did follow the election rule, it is unnecessary to revote his position. And since the 2nd vote was conducted in accordance the rule, the revote will be done beginning at the 3rd vote.

The Bylaws Subcommittee members agreed to contact the other members who were candidates for an interbasin representative position to apprise them of the revote and notify them that they have the opportunity for 5 minute presentation to the Roundtable in order to refresh everyone about each candidate's qualifications for the position.

The Bylaws Subcommittee apologies for this failure to follow the rules our own committee agreed to and want to make clear that it was accidental. As new groups of individuals coming together to develop bylaws and take on a new process, we accept that are subject to making errors. We will be more vigilant in the future.
SeEtta Moss, Bylaws Subcommittee member

Consensus discussion: Lets BLOG it:

2005-11-30T09:40:00.000-07:00

What are your thoughts?

Even though I agree that it would be great to eventually reach consensus without a vote, I don't think we have established a level of communications, cooperation, collaboration, procedure, introduction or trust to move to forgo a vote of consensus.

A process in which each Member is given fair opportunity to be heard, in which each Member fairly listens to the others, in which complete discussion of the issue is held, and in which decisions are made by general agreement of the voting Membership, but not necessarily by unanimity. e.g. (Consensus is reached if at least 55 of the 59 voting Members of the Roundtable agree.)

Bylaws-Final Draft of proposed Bylaws to date

2005-11-29T21:54:00.000-07:00

11-30-05 Correction Notice--The Bylaw sections posted yesterday had an error--a ratio of 3/4 in Article VIII, Section 2, B. 2. a & b was incorrectly entered. Mr Hamel has corrected that to the 2/3 ratio the Subcommittee agreed upon and the corrected draft has been inserted below. Our apologies for any confusion.

The Bylaws Subcommittee has finalized the following Draft Bylaws sections: Preamble, Article I (Name and Mission), and Article VIII Section II (Interbasin Compact Committee representatives). Completed sections are in bold type. These will be presented to the full Roundtable at the Dec 1 meeting at the Pueblo Convention Center. The remainder of the Bylaws will be completed in subsequent Subcommittee meetings. Draft Bylaws are accessed by clicking on "Read More".BYLAWS FOR THE ARKANSAS BASIN ROUNDTABLE

Draft of November 30, 2005

PREAMBLE

In Colorado, water is among the state's most important issues. The ability to successfully address the challenges and opportunities related to water requires a basin-driven, collaborative approach. To facilitate continued discussions within and between basins on water management issues, and to encourage locally driven collaborative solutions to water supply challenges, the Colorado Water for the 21st Century Act created nine permanent basin roundtables.
These roundtables include the following: (1) South Platte Basin; (2) Arkansas Basin; (3) Rio Grande Basin; (4) Gunnison Basin; (5) Colorado Basin; (6) Yampa-White area; (Dolores, San Miguel, and San Juan Basins); (8) Metro area; and (9) North Platte area.

Legitimacy requires that anyone potentially affected by the actions of a roundtable should have an opportunity to participate or, at a minimum, each affected group of stakeholders should have a like-minded representative participating as a member of the roundtable organization. Only by working together can Colorado's 21st century water issues be resolved.

ARTICLE I
NAME AND MISSION

Section 1. Name The name of the organization shall be the Arkansas Basin Roundtable, with its principal office temporarily located at The Board of Water Works of Pueblo, 319 W. 4th Street, Pueblo, Colorado and will distribute information to the roundtable members.

Section 2. Mission The mission of the Arkansas Basin Roundtable (ABR) is to work collaboratively, from both an inter-basin and intra-basin perspective, to provide an assessment of agricultural, recreational, municipal, industrial and environmental water supply needs and to identify projects and methods to meet those needs in sustainable, balanced ways. This roundtable will also serve as a forum for public involvement on water matters.

ARTICLE II
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

[The By-law Subcommittee agreed that goals were more general and that objectives should be specific, measurable items supporting goals. Roundtable members will be solicited for their input on goals and objectives.]

ARTICLE III
DEFINITIONS

ARTICLE IV
ROUNDTABLE MEMBERSHIP

ARTICLE V
ROUNDTABLE LEADERSHIP

ARTICLE VI
DECISION MAKING

[The By-law Subcommittee affirmed in concept the importance of consensus decision making.]

ARTICLE VII
MEETINGS AND GOVERNANCE

ARTICLE VIII
ROUNDTABLE POWERS

Section 1. TBD

Section 2. Interbasin Compact Committee The Roundtable shall select two individuals to represent the Roundtable on the IBCC in accordance with the following: (A decision on selection of an alternate to be made in the future)

A. IBCC Representative Voting Guidelines

1) A quorum of three-quarters (3/4) of the voting roundtable members must be present to select the IBCC representatives. The Chairman may, in his/her discretion, postpone the selection if the attendance of members is hampered by weather.

2) Members of the roundtable must be present to cast their vote.

3) Candidates for IBCC Representative:
a. Must be a roundtable member;
b. Do not have to be present to be selected;
c. Are requested to make a presentation of his/her qualification at the selection meeting, if possible. Please limit the presentation to a maximum of five (5) minutes.

B. Initial IBCC Representative Voting Procedures

1) Voting will be by secret ballot with a tally provided by a neutral party of the Chairman's selection.

2) When two representatives are to be selected, each voting roundtable member will vote for two different persons on the 1st Ballot.

a. If any Candidate receives two-thirds (2/3) of the vote, that person is elected as an IBCC Representative for an initial term of three (3) years. If two Candidates receive two-thirds (2/3) of the votes each, the Candidate receiving the largest number of votes shall serve a three (3) year- term and the other Representative will each serve a two-(2) year term.

3) If no Candidate receives two-thirds (2/3) of the votes, the number of Candidates will be reduced by one, by eliminating the Candidate who received the least number of votes. Voting roundtable members will follow the procedures in B. 2) above, voting again for two persons (and in the case of no Candidate receiving two-thirds (2/3), reducing by one the number of Candidates in turn), until at least one (1) Candidate receives two-thirds (3/4) of the vote or only two (2) Candidates remain.

4) After one (1) IBCC has been selected for a three (3) year term via the procedures above, the voting roundtable members shall vote for one(1) Candidate of the then remaining Candidates (only those not yet eliminated) for a two (2) year term.

C. Subsequent IBCC Representatives Voting

1) When an IBCC Representative's Term expires, the voting members of the roundtable will re-elect the representative or select a new representative by a two-thirds (2/3) margin using the procedures outlined above.

2) If and when the number of Candidates, in sequential balloting, has been reduced to two (2), the representative will be selected by simple majority.

D. IBCC Representatives Term

1) Each IBCC Representative will serve a two (2) year term, except for the initial three (3) year term described above.

2) IBCC Representatives are discharged from their position of representation if:

a. There being a quorum as determined by the Chairman, three-fourths (3/4) of the voting members present vote to recall a representative, or;

b. An IBCC Representative has three (3) consecutive, un-excused absences from the Interbasin Compact Committee meetings.

Another try...

2005-11-17T21:50:00.000-07:00

Here's another try on a mission statement built on those posted below:

>The mission of the Arkansas Basin Roundtable is to work collaboratively, with both an inter-basin and intra-basin scope, to provide an assessment of water supply needs and to propose projects and methods to meet those needs in sustainable ways that balance the agricultural, recreational, municipal and environmental interests of the basin. This Roundtable will also serve as a forum for public involvement on water matters in this basin.>

And I agree with Jane about using legal wording in our Bylaws. Many of us come from professions that have our own language that facilitates communication between those of us in the same profession. It is my experience that legalize does not facilitate communication with those of us outside of the legal profession. There is already a legal document associated with our Roundtable and that is HB-1177 which is written in legalize. I would like our Bylaws to be written in plain English--this will allow those involved to understand and participate more fully.
SeEtta Moss

The mission: a new direction

2005-11-16T13:20:00.000-07:00

The mission of the Arkansas Basin Roundtable is to work in concert with both an inter-basin and intra-basin scope of concern in order to balance and protect the needs and sustainability of the agricultural, recreational and municipal entities of our valley.

Definition of collaborate

2005-11-15T12:46:00.000-07:00

Jay and all,
According to the online Merriam-Webster Dictionary the etymology of collaborative is: "Late Latin collaboratus, past participle of collaborare to labor together, from Latin com- + laborare to labor"

I think what we are doing is well described by "to labor together."

It also lists the following three possible definitions of which #1 & #3 are applicable to our process:

"1 : to work jointly with others or together especially in an intellectual endeavor
2 : to cooperate with or willingly assist an enemy of one's country and especially an occupying force
3 : to cooperate with an agency or instrumentality with which one is not immediately connected"

I don't think the second definition applies to us nor abrogates the functionality of "collaborates" as a good description of our process. I'd like to leave it in.
SeEtta Moss

Lissa's Post

2005-11-15T10:43:00.000-07:00

I like Lissa's Mission Statement, I would like to see the word collaborative replaced, webster defines collaborative as " To cooperate treasonably, as with an enemy occupation force"

Another version of a Mission Statement

2005-11-15T08:46:00.000-07:00

I like Tom's Caption and Preamble as written.
I have developed a hybrid of other statements posted and it is as follows;

"The mission of the Roundtable is to work in a collaborative manner, with both an inter-basin and intra-basin scope, to provide an assessment of water supply needs and to propose projects and methods to meet those needs.
We are further committed to encouragement of locally driven solutions and to serve as a forum for education and debate. "

By-laws thoughts

2005-11-11T15:42:00.000-07:00

For those who aren't on the by-laws committee, here are some of my comments.

I would like to see our by-laws follow more closely the draft sent to us by Russell George. The ones (no offense) written by lawyers seem to me to have no character and traditionally maybe that was OK. I think it's time to be a little untraditional. I think we need to make it clear in our by-laws that we do intend to do business in a little different way - as is clear from the Act in 37-75-104, "...to encourage locally driven collaborative solutions..." and to (d) Serve as a forum for education and debate..."
I have read the S. Platte by-laws draft and though there are some interesting points, for the most part they address essentially legal issues and not vision issues. At least in the Mission and Goals we need to leave our by-laws open to revising and re-visioning as we learn more about what the different communities need.

Question about attaching files to the blog

2005-11-08T22:49:00.000-07:00

Tom and all,
If a file is directly link-able on a web site, then it can be easily linked. But I expect you are asking to attach a file that is a draft Preamble or Mission Statement, etc. If you have typed it in another location, then you need to copy and paste it in a Post on this site.

I did put a link on the right to the Interbasin Compact Site on the Div of Natural Resources website where you can go into the draft Bylaws they gave us but it is not directly link-able. And there is a problem with the Colo Dept of Natural Resources website so it is not accessible at all--hopefully it will be fixed tomorrow.
SeEtta Moss

A little of each..Mission statement....

2005-11-08T10:10:00.000-07:00

I have taken a little of SeEtta's, Mark's, Tom's and my mission statement and combined them all into this possible mission statement that I think gets as close to all our input as I see it at this time.

The purpose/mission of the Roundtable is to work in a collaborative manner with both an inter-basin and an intra-basin scope of cooperation, to identify issues and find solutions that work to meet the agricultural, economic, environmental, recreational and quality of life needs associated with, but not be limiting to water policy, water law, water projects, operations of projects, and the rights of our constituency in the Arkansas River basin.

Page 1 Caption and Preamble

2005-11-07T17:03:00.000-07:00

I started playing with the form from DNR and wanted to try the blog. So here is a suggestion for the beginning:

************

BYLAWS, OPERATING PROCEDURES, GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR THE ARKANSAS RIVER BASIN ROUNDTABLE

Approved December 1, 2005

***Committee Draft****

PREAMBLE

These Bylaws, operating procedures, goals and objectives (hereinafter referred to as the “Bylaws”) are adopted for the governance of the Arkansas Basin Roundtable organized and existing under and by virtue of Article 75 of Title 37 of the Colorado Revised Statutes (HB 05-1177), and are specifically authorized by § 37-75-104, C.R.S. (2005).

It is the intention of these Bylaws to permit anyone potentially affected by the actions of this Roundtable to have a reasonable opportunity to participate in or have their views made known to the roundtable organization to the greatest extent allowed by statute, and the Bylaws should be construed consistently with such intent.

ARTICLE I
NAME AND PURPOSE/MISSION

Section 1. Name. The name of the organization shall be the Arkansas River Basin Roundtable, (the “Roundtable”), with its principal office located at (INSERT ADDRESS, INCLUDING COUNTY).

Is there a way to actually attach word documents to this?

Suggestion for Mission Statement

2005-11-05T22:33:00.000-07:00

Following is my suggestion for a Mission Statement:

>>It is the Mission of the Arkansas Basin Roundtable to work in a collaborative manner with the diverse interests in the basin to provide an assessment of basin-wide consumptive and non-consumptive water supply needs and to propose projects and methods to meet those needs.<<<

SeEtta Moss

First time blogging

2005-11-02T11:35:00.000-07:00

Another interesting form of communication.
I like SeEtta's post on birding at Brush Hollow Reservoir. There has been some talk and speculation about Brush Hollow and proposed changes and/or expansion.

2005-11-01T20:39:00.000-07:00

Edit on Brush Hollow birding

Edit on 11-2-05--My apologies, I posted this to the wrong blog (I have several). I did delete the photo as it takes a lot of space but didn't want to elimate the post yet since Lissa's post refers to it. I will be more careful in future and not bore you with my birding experiences. SeEtta Moss

Today I drove out to Brush Hollow Reservoir which is located about 12 miles northeast of Canon City, near the little town of Penrose. The water in this small lake, which is an irration storage reservoir, is quite low and there was good muddy shoreline so I was hopeful of finding some late migrating shorebird. But the only shorebirds were killdeer like the one in this photo.

In addition to 20+ Killdeer, the lake area produced several Ring-billed Gulls, a few teal ducks, and 2 dark-headed geese (probably Canada Geese but too distant to rule out the recently split Cackling Goose).

However, I did find a Loggerhead Shrike in the upland area that is a State Wildlife Area. Though not rare, this species is very uncommon in Fremont County. SeEtta

Some ideas about our goals and objectives

2005-10-30T23:04:00.000-07:00

I will kick off some discussion by putting forth a few ideas about what I think our goals (broad are broad, general intentions) and objectives (specific and tangible) are that can be supported by at least most members:

Goals of the Akransas Basin Roundtable:
1)focus on retaining sufficient water in the Arkansas River and its tributaries to:
-a)provide adequate amounts of water for basin municipal areas & industrial use
-b)maintain the economies of both rural as well as urban areas throughout this basin
-c)provide necessary amounts of water to sustain basin family farming and ranching
-d)support sufficient dilution needed to sustain water quality standards
-e)sustain the stream and riparian ecosystems that improve water quality, maintain
.....hydrologic flow, reduces soil erosion, and provides fish & wildlife habitat
-f)arrange necessary stream flows required for recreational activities including .....fishing, boating (rafting, kayaking, canoeing), and wildlife watching.
2)support agricultural water leasing projects that retain water in the river and tributaries so that:
-a)lands are not dewatered and rural communities harmed,
-b)while providing water to municipal systems,
-c)and financial benefit to those with water use rights.
3)to serve as a forum for public involvement regarding alternative proposals for .....meeting water needs of the basin [this is required by the statute]

Objectives are (these come from powers & responsibilities specified in HB1177):
1)establish bylaws, operating procedures, goals, and objectives
2)as deemed appropriate by the Executive Director, take on the duties and functions of the Roundtables created pursuant to the Statewide Water Supply Initiative
3)select two representatives to the Interbasin Compact Committee
4)develop a basin-wide water needs assessment that:
-a)looks at both consumptive and nonconsumptive needs
-b)analyzes the availability of unappropriated waters within the basin, if any
-c)seeks the input and advice of affected local governments, water providers and
.....other interested stakeholders and persons
5)propose projects or non-structural methods for meeting water supply needs and .....utilizing unappropriated waters where appropriate and available.
6)serve as a forum for education and debate regarding methods for meeting water .....supply needs
7)as needed, establish roundtable subcommittees or other mechanisms to facilitate .....dialogue and resolution of issues and conflicts within the basin.

SeEtta Moss

Arkansas Basin Roundtable

2005-10-29T10:34:00.000-06:00

This looks like a good site that we can all speak and have a dialogue on. It is a good place to place ideas and look at others.

Charles Beard
Silver Cliiff
ccbeard@centurytel.net

More blog info

2005-10-28T23:27:00.000-06:00

Just wanted to point out that I have put links on the right side of this page that, by clicking on them, will take you directly to the following relevant websites:

>Interbasin Compact Site--this is specific to the Roundtable process
>CWCB Site--the Colorado Water Conservation Board website
>Colo'sDecisionSupportSystems--a new site I just found that has links to info that may be useful to us in this endeavors

I thought I a few pics of the Arkansas River and one of its major tributaries, the Purgatory, would be appropriate. So I posted some photos I took of the following: the top photo is the Arkansas River near Canon City, the second one is the Arkansas River near Salida, the third photo is of the Purgatory River in Picketwire Canyon and the bottom photo is of John Martin Reservoir.

SeEtta Moss
Roundtable "tree-hugger"

Welcome fellow Roundtable members

2005-10-27T22:16:00.000-06:00

I hope that you did not experience any problems in navigating to our blog. Since this blog was created as a tool for Roundtable members to communicate with each other, I suggest we limit membership to our group and to the DNR/CWCB representatives working with us. I would suggest that we also allow the technical advisors to our Roundtable be allowed to register as members of this blog so they can provide information to us that they believe to be salient to our discussions.

Since our process is intended to be be a public endeavor and subject to the Open Meetings Law, I have constructed this site so anyone can read the posts (please remember that when posting).

SeEtta Moss, Environmental Representative
Arkansas Valley Audubon Society