Oct 14 08 South Platte Minutes

• Basin Roundtable: South Platte
• Title: South Platte Minutes 10/08
• Date: 10/14/2008
• Basin Roundtables - Doc Type: Minutes

Sue Morea: We need consensus on vision and goals and move forward on strategies. Not
all strategies will meet the goals, but we can move forward.
Julio Iturreria: I need a good definition of sustainable, can't buy it. Overworked word.
Need clear form to create a vision.
Bill Jerke: Seems like we are tiring to reinvent a plan that was created in 1876, this
seems a fallacy for the get-go.
Eric Wilkinson: Will go back with a clear message that we can work on this document
but we need to be working on the strategies as well. We need the data and the
information, time to go forward. Time to look at representative solutions.
Mike Shimmin: It has been my personal goal to quit wordsmithing the vision and the
goals so we can go forward with the strategies. There will be M&I users, ag users and rec
and environmental users. We will all be using the water. What is missing from my view
is any reference whatsoever of fiilly developing any unappropriated water. Fully
developing unappropriated water must be listed under goals and in vision. Why have
strategies that are not even listed in the goals. No other targets that I have that seem kworth
fighting for.
Todd Doherty: Is this in the new draft?
Sue Morea: These goals will be added. Other message from this group will
John Stencil: I believe that Eric and Mike on the right track. This basin has the most to
lose. Therefore, the strategies you talk about need to be as bold as you can make them. If
you don't, we won't have anything to fight for. We must find ways to be as bold as we
can.
111. Grand County Stream Management Plan - Caroline Bradford
3 things: Description of Grand County, why Grand County needs a stream management
plan, has applied for a state explained stakeholder communication process and why this is
so important.
--Grand Countv: Headwaters of the Colorado, Winter Park Ski area, much water diverted
from this. Many issues: long history of transbasin diversion: 7 points of diversion to
Front Range, more water diverted from Grand County than from any other basin. They
do understand that the Front Range planners were better planners than their own planners.
Legal vs fair... perception.
--2 important projects: Windy Gap and Denver's Moffat project; 70% of Upper CO and
Fraser, not there in anymore. Both projects will reduce the flow fiuther. Have not always
had scientific basis, thus, when Denver and Northern ask for more water.. So Grand
County trying to better understand their river and stream flows. Thus, Grand County
Stream Management Plan is studying 80 miles of the river: Frasier and Upper Colorado
and tributaries. Two different flow conditions studies: environmental flows of aquatic life
and water users: irrigators, municipal and industrial needs. Trying to recommend a
preferred flow regime in the rivers. Want these protected of stream health and to retain
the flexibility of fiiture uses for both west slope and east slope uses. Recognized that not
all recommended flows on all streams and all reaches can be maintained for all time.
Phase 1 Spring of 07, Phase 2, Spring of 08, Phase 3 ongoing. Grand County, Denver
Water, Northern, CO River District and local water users and all industrial users. Various
consultants hired. Part of study is how to better tiweak the water in the reservoirs so that
the water can be available. They can consider physical restoration, so if water does not
match old channel, can restore the stream to match the water.
--Eric Wilkinson: Comment on process. Stream management plan was developed by
Grand County. Northern has participated in Phase 1 and 3; have tried to reach a solution
to the problem. One of the big factors in the agreement to participate is the agreement by
Grand Countv that the streams can be modified. Modify- the habitat to meet the needs of
9