Laserfiche WebLink
motion passed on a unanimous voice vote. <br /> The next agenda item was consideration of minimum streamflow <br /> appropriations . Mr. McDonald described the final recommendations first. <br /> I/ They were for stream segments in Park, Summit, Mineral, and Archuleta <br /> Counties . Mr. McDonald described several corrections in the list as <br /> submitted. Mr. McDonald also indicated that the staff was recommending <br /> that the filing on the San Juan River segment listed on page 2 of the <br /> final recommendations (second from the last entry) include the following <br /> stipulation: <br /> "Applicant will not use this water right as a basis on <br /> which to oppose the construction of any well as defined in <br /> C.R.S. 1973, 37-92-602(1) , which is not part of a plan for <br /> augmentation or water supply plan and which is tributary to <br /> that segment of the San Juan River described in this appli- <br /> cation, so long as the 10-year cumulative average of the flow <br /> measured at the USGS gaging station at Pagosa Springs , Colo- <br /> rado, during any month does not fall below the amount of this <br /> appropriation. Applicant does not waive its right to use <br /> this water right as a basis to raise any other objections at <br /> any other time. " <br /> There was a general discussion of the stipulation. Mr. McDonald <br /> indicated that a stipulation such as the one proposed should be <br /> applied on a case-by-case basis as circumstances may warrant. The <br /> stipulation was worked out jointly with the State Engineer in this <br /> instance in order to provide a workable means of protecting existing <br /> uses and to recognize the recreational values at stake. Following <br /> further discussion, Mr. McDonald moved the adoption of the recommenda- <br /> tions as corrected, including the proposed stipulation (attachment M) . <br /> Mr. Sherman seconded the motion. The motion passed on a unanimous <br /> voice vote. <br /> Mr. McDonald then presented the preliminary recommendations and <br /> pointed out a few corrections to the materials which had been submitted <br /> to the Board. He then moved their approval as corrected (attachment N) . <br /> Mr. Gormley seconded the motion. There being no discussion, the motion <br /> I/ passed on a unanimous voice vote. <br /> Mr. McDonald then presented the proposed floodplain resolutions , <br /> numbered 148 through 155 (attachments 0 through V, respectively) . <br /> He suggested deferral of resolution 152 concerning Weld County because <br /> of unresolved issues which the staff had not had an opportunity to <br /> discuss with local officials and because the local officials were not <br /> present. Mr. Jackson moved approval of the proposed resolutions with <br /> the exception of number 152, seconded by Mr. Gormley. There being no <br /> -5- <br />