Laserfiche WebLink
• <br /> I <br /> amount of that that has occurred during the flood operations, and even though this <br /> is a relatively small amount of water, there has been the benefit from that, so we <br /> don't think its just water running down river. We also do have concerns about the <br /> tprecedent and being inconsistent with the'76 resolution. And while I agree <br /> technically that past actions can be changed, we're concerned about doing that. <br /> ' So I guess the answer is it's both. It's trying to offer an alternative that if there is <br /> some other form of transfer of water that Colorado would like to propose into the <br /> permanent pool,we're willing to listen to a plan, as long as we understand it,that <br /> ' it would be consistent with the '76 action and perhaps would be acceptable <br /> otherwise. <br /> ' Weiss: The reason...I asked the question because if it were purely the legal thing and the <br /> precedent, I think we could work with you to draft some language of a one-time <br /> only no precedent nature, perhaps something similar to what we did with the <br /> stockponds this year,but if it's actually the water you want released physically <br /> from the reservoir,then that's obviously a very different matter. That's why I <br /> asked the question. <br /> Rolfs: Mr. Chairman, this is Lee Rolfs. <br /> ' Trujillo: Yes? <br /> Rolfs: I heard some language, I can't recall who mentioned it, but talked about actually <br /> ' amending,maybe even for one year,the 1976 operating agreement, and I guess <br /> that makes me a little uncomfortable in that I don't think that was on the agenda <br /> ' for this meeting. <br /> Trujillo: No, I don't think we should get into a discussion of amending the August 14, 1976 <br /> ' Operating Rules without further notice for a different meeting, because I would <br /> suppose other people might be interested and certainly should have the opportunity <br /> of that notice. However, it is also beginning to appear that this resolution <br /> ' presently before us that was properly announced by Mr. Miller has not been <br /> sufficiently discussed amongst the two states prior to the meeting, I would hope <br /> that that would have occurred or if there is no resolution easily available on the <br /> ' table that the two parties can agree to, that we would do that and reconvene the <br /> meeting at a later date, but unless Mr. Miller, Mr. Evans or you, Mr. Pope think <br /> that there's some quick fix to this disagreement on what the resolution says and <br /> what you're both ready to adopt. <br /> Miller: This is Steve Miller, and Lee, I said I wasn't proposing to change the 1976 <br /> Operating Criteria. I was proposing that we could agree not to apply one of its <br /> terms to the operation we were contemplating this year. If that's not doable, it's <br /> not doable, or not acceptable, it's not acceptable. But I wasn't proposing that we <br /> G:\ARCA\MEETINGS\1999\SP61499A revl.wpd <br /> 9 editedDecember 13,2004;printed:December 13,2004 <br />