Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Rod K: I don't want to point the finger on EIS delays. <br /> <br />David: We do want to communicate and let them know where things are today, we need to take advantage of those <br />congressional meetings, <br /> <br />Rod K: Cost of storage, glad to see this as # 1. The dilemma here is to get the Corp to commit to an internal process to <br />recalculate the cost of storage, or the alternative is we need to go to the _'1_ bill. We need to get them to make those <br />calculation changes. <br /> <br />Tom: Steve is going to make those changes, he's going to be at the meeting. Or do it as an internal process. <br /> <br />Rod: If we can get the Corps to do the change, its better. <br /> <br />Tom: The wordatrack (sp?) is the best way to go. <br /> <br />Betty: The zero cost of storage you are talking about would mean there would be no cost to the storage users. The cost of <br />storage needs to be done even if the water users aren't going to be paying. <br /> <br />Tom: The actual costs to the users is what we are talking, not what goes into the budget numbers. The money coming out <br />of their wallets. <br /> <br />Rod: You have my total support on putting it as # 1. <br /> <br />Tom: Kevin, you may be up. Did we wear you out? <br /> <br />Kevin Kinnear : You know I am here as representative of Mt. Carbon Metro District. Our interest is being allowed to back <br />into the sandbox to play with you guys. Mt. Carbon in early 80s adjudicated a water right in Chatfield, and continually held <br />discussion with Corps and CWCB on this, it started with Hill & Robbins in early 80' s, other counsel in the later years. <br />Then when it came time to divvy up the space, Mt. Carbon was kind of left in the cold without any of the allocation. The <br />interest that Mt. Carbon has is 800 AF of storage. That's the amount on the books for 20 years. Last year the property that <br />constitutes Mt. Carbon was acquired by a group, they retained me as water council, and participate in these meetings to <br />represent their interest. That's my purpose. # 1) alert the group to Mt. Carbon's vested interest in having apportion of this <br />water allocated to their water right. Amount was originally 800 AF, later number was offered that they were concerned <br />would amount to a waiver of their original allocation. Our marching orders at this point is to express interest and desire to <br />get our allocation we think we have a right to, and to try and be creative and cooperative, but also adamant in securing some <br />of this. Intent to do whatever it takes to get an allocation of the water they deem appropriate. In looking at the allocation <br />and total amount of water here, Mt. Carbon asking for 4% of total 20,000 AF. My intent in discussing this is to inquire <br />among water users if they are interested in reallocating their amounts to respect of this 4% request. So that is the first and <br />easiest solution to us. When Hock Hocking gave up part of its 100 AF appropriation, the CWCB explained their hands <br />were tied for reallocating any amounts of water already allocated. Right of first refusal to existing members of the group. <br />Our other option in addition to a reallocation back to Mt. Carbon is to have that provision waived by the members so the <br />amounts that become available by people giving up their share be allocated to Mt. Carbon. Would like other users' <br />reactions to this. <br /> <br />1 r of Tom (purple shirt): What would be the delays to EIS if we start participating. Lots of information to EIS and TT and <br />models run, Mt. Carbon not participated in. If you decide to participate now, how are you going to get this information in <br />timely and what kind of mitigation offered. <br /> <br />Kevin: Not fair to suggest we sat on our hands or didn't do something. In addition to being willing to pay its share it will <br />provide whatever information others have provided. <br /> <br />'1'1: (Dark haired woman r of Kevin): Kerry had indicated that there was a response, we haven't seen it, but it should be in <br />the files. <br /> <br />Rod K: As user of storage space, wearing a new hat, my feeling is when the 100 AF offered up, offered understanding no <br />one would get everything they wanted. When the 100 AF was offered up which would have put you on the table, it was <br />said 800 AF or nothing, negotiations broke down basically. I guess my feeling is it doesn't matter what horse they are <br />riding and who they work for, history has set this. Does bode well that negotiating position has changed. So I guess the <br /> <br />12 <br />