Laserfiche WebLink
I <br />SECWCD <br />February 16, 2006 <br />12 <br />RECORD OF PROCEEDING <br />Mr. Leonhardt reported that one of legal counsel's concerns with the December 2005 exchange <br />filings in Water Division 2 is the extent to which, if decreed, they could reduce opportunities for <br />exchanges of non - Project water for use elsewhere within the Southeastern District. Such exchange <br />opportunities have been the subject of recent discussions between Southeastern and other parties, <br />mainly in the context of the Chaffee County RICD settlement negotiations and the Arkansas Valley <br />Conduit meetings. Mr. Leonhardt said Southeastern will be best able to preserve these <br />opportunities, especially as against the December 2005 applications, by filing its own exchange <br />applications in Water Court this month, along with statements of opposition to the December <br />applications that are of concern. District staff has asked legal counsel to prepare two such <br />applications, and to recommend them for the Board's consideration. The Board was provided a <br />copy of a memorandum that further explains what legal counsel proposes in this regard, along with <br />a draft of one of the two exchange applications that legal counsel proposes to file on behalf of the <br />District. <br />Mr. Leonhardt recommended that the Board direct legal counsel to file an application during <br />February 2006 for exchanges of non - Project water from Pueblo Reservoir into Twin Lakes and <br />Turquoise Reservoirs, at rates up to 400 cfs and volume up to 19,600 acre -feet per year, for use by <br />the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District and its constituents, based on the exchanges <br />contemplated in the PSOP report and the Chaffee County negotiations. Mr. Miskel moved, <br />seconded by Mr. Dils, to approve the recommendation of Mr. Leonhardt. Motion unanimously <br />carried. <br />President Stealey asked Mr. Leonhardt to explain how the District is where it is at now and how we <br />got there. Mr. Leonhardt explained that there was a gentlemen's understanding in place among <br />some of the parties in the Chaffee County negotiations, to defer filing for exchanges in the reaches <br />above Pueblo Reservoir, and that Colorado Springs and Aurora had then filed applications for such <br />exchanges. There was discussion among the Board that because of this action the Southeastern <br />District will also need to file an application. <br />Mr. Leonhardt then recommended that the Board direct legal counsel to file an application during <br />February 2006 for exchanges of non - Project water into Pueblo Reservoir from the Holbrook, Catlin, <br />High Line, Oxford Farmers, and Rocky Ford Ditches, at rates up to 594 cfs from Holbrook storage <br />and 50 cfs for direct flow exchange, and total volume up to 20,000 acre -feet per year, for use by the <br />Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District and its constituents, including but not limited to <br />the Arkansas Valley Conduit participants, based on the exchanges contemplated in the Arkansas <br />Conduit and PSOP reports. Mr. Dils moved, seconded by Mr. Bailey, to approve the <br />recommendation of Mr. Leonhardt. Motion unanimously carried. <br />Mr. Leonhardt reported Kansas submitted a new proposed decree in Kansas v. Colorado on <br />December 28, 2005. He said several features of the proposed decree and Colorado's comments on <br />it are summarized in legal counsel's written report to the Board. Mr. Leonhardt said the Special <br />Master set a status conference on March 15 for the States to discuss decree issues, possibly with <br />