Laserfiche WebLink
(1) concern for potential conflicts between the adminis- <br /> tration of the Act and the exercise of water rights under state • <br /> law and the allocations of water made by interstate compact or <br /> judicial decree; <br /> (2) support for the ongoing efforts to find administrative <br /> solutions to these conflicts in the Upper Colorado River and Platte <br /> River Basins; <br /> (.3) support for seeking committee report language which <br /> would recognize and confirm the appropriateness of these efforts- <br /> and would direct the Fish and Wildlife Service to report back to <br /> Congress on the results; <br /> (4) support for limiting reauthorization of the Act to as <br /> few years as possible; and <br /> (5) support for several substantive amendments to the Act. <br /> Mr. Vandemoer moved, seconded by Mr. Smith, that the staff <br /> prepare a statement for the record setting forth the Board's views <br /> along the lines indicated above and, further, that the Board <br /> support a limitation of one year on the reauthorization of the Act. <br /> Motion adopted unanimously. <br /> Mr. Robbins suggested that the May Board meeting include <br /> a discussion of the Colorado Threatened and Endangered Species Act. <br /> and how the Board may use this as a planning tool to avoid • <br /> threatened and endangered species conflicts in the future. <br /> Agenda Item 12 - CRSP Power Revenue Proposal <br /> Mr. McDonald reported on recent discussions with the Colorado <br /> Association of Municipal Utilities (CAMU) . CAMU would like a. <br /> complete status report on the power revenue proposal . CAMU is <br /> not generally opposed to the end objective, but it does have <br /> certain objections and concerns with the proposal as it now stands . <br /> Mr. McDonald indicated that the Board wants to work primarily with <br /> the utilities in state now to further refine the proposal . Mr. <br /> McDonald noted that there is only one bottom-line objective and <br /> that both the Board and he will listen to any reasonable alterna- <br /> tives. The lack of congressional funding for water projects has <br /> created the need to convert hydropower revenues into a front-end <br /> funding devise as well as using them as the traditional repayment <br /> vehicle. <br /> Ms. Linda Lazzerino noted that the Platte River Power Authority <br /> was also opposed to the proposal as it now stands. The issue is <br /> not water but money. She noted that power pays only for the power <br /> and irrigation components of a project at present. <br /> Mr. Lochhead moved, seconded by Mr. Covert, that the Board <br /> authorize Mr. McDonald to continue negotiations with municipal <br /> • <br /> -8- <br />