|
<br />I'
<br />t
<br />
<br />Catlin:
<br />
<br />Miskel"
<br />
<br />Seaholm:
<br />
<br />Miskel:
<br />
<br />Seaholm:
<br />
<br />Waleher:
<br />
<br />002457
<br />
<br />sort of thing, or something like that. It just seems like we're the policy
<br />making body for this state, we definitely have an interest in it, in water
<br />that has been set aside for use, our part of our compact entitlement, we
<br />certainly support this whole concept, and I wondered if there was some
<br />formal action we ought to be taking in this regard, Yes, Keith?
<br />
<br />Anything that we can do to help it, I think should be done...it concerns all
<br />of us,
<br />
<br />Randy, do you have some comments?
<br />
<br />(speaking offmike) Yes, I'd like to remind the Board that it is important,
<br />this 300,000 is a policy that they adopted on the Gunnison two or three
<br />meetings back.
<br />
<br />Yes, that's right.
<br />
<br />And it was part of the policy that was adopted there, and I think we should
<br />reiterate that policy., . (unclear...too far from microphone),...
<br />
<br />Mr. Chairman, I think 1. . . although what Randy said is absolutely right,
<br />and this Board is already on record on the 300,000 issue, I also think
<br />would urge extreme caution in anything that this Board might do that is
<br />related to this letter because it contains some,..it contains some fireworks
<br />(firewords?) from the Western Slope point of view, that I think we want to
<br />be a little bit careful about. The goal ofthe letter is to make sure that the
<br />Bureau of Reclamation doesn't do modeling that assumes all of the water
<br />is already being used. And that would be in conformance with state law
<br />and the Supreme Court's decision and so on, and so that is a useful
<br />function, and if the Secretary of the Interior can make sure that the Bureau
<br />doesn't do that, it would be a good thing for our state. But it also contains
<br />at least a hint, and I would call your attention to the very last sentence of
<br />the last long paragraph, It contains a hint that somebody wants the Bureau
<br />of Reclamation to decide what to do with this water, or to use the Bureau's
<br />process to look at what opportunities there are for using that water, and by
<br />saying for the benefit of the entire state, it implies that somebody's asking
<br />the Bureau of Reclamation to determine where that water gets used. And
<br />our position, obviously, is that's a Colorado decision, for Coloradoans to
<br />work on, So that's the function, really, of this Board, and ofthe
<br />legislature, and policy-making apparatus in Colorado. Its not something
<br />that we want the Bureau of Reclamation or the US Department of Interior
<br />to do, that is to figure out where 240,000 acre feet of water ought to be
<br />used, So I guess I wish that sentence hadn't been in the letter at all, it
<br />would be extremely useful without it, but I just want us to be a little bit
<br />cautious about associating ourselves too closely with the detail in it,
<br />although the main goal in it, obviously, is worthwhile,
<br />
<br />2
<br />
|