Board Meeting 01/30/1980

• Board Meeting Date: 1/30/1980
• Description: Minutes, Agenda, Memorandums January 30, 1980
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Meeting

explained that the fundamental purpose of the policies is to improve
the use of the limited state resources which are available to support
local governmental needs. As an example of the application of the
policies, Mr. Jordan pointed out that there are approximately $8 million
available to his department for assistance to communities impacted by
I/ an energy development activity. At the same time, the department has
received requests for about $36 million. Thus, the policies will pro-
vide an objective and consistent basis for allocating resources to a
limited number of the applicants.
Mr. Jordan provided Board members with copies of a work plan for
implementation of the policies. He pointed out that the Water Con-
servation Board would be affected by the effort. He asked for review
and comments. Mr . McDonald concluded the discussion by pointing out
that his staff is working with the Department of Local Affairs and
other agencies to develop the necessary work plan. He advised that he
would keep the Board informed of progress.
Cha i rman Stapleton t hen called for the report of the Attorney
General. Mr. MacFarlane reported on the status of minimum streamflow
appropriations in Division 2, where all eighty-one cases had been
settled and decrees issued. In Division 5 matters are in continuance.
He asked that Mr. Don Hamburg report on the status of the Colorado vs.
New Mexico case. Mr. Hamburg reported that a motion for summary judg-
ment filed by New Mexico had been denied and that a trial is antici-
pated in late spring or early summer.
Mr. Dennis Montgomery then reported on the Higginson case. He
noted that the trial court had determined that a programmatic environ-
mental impact statement is not necessary, although it is within the
discretion of the Secretary of the Interior to prepare one.
Mr. MacFarlane then commented on the status of the Huston ground-
water case. The State ' s position is a middle ground between the
opposing interests. The State' s argument is based on a modified common
law theory that recognizes the current Designated Ground Water Act and
S.B. 213.
Mr. Stapleton then called for a report from the State Engineer.
Dr. Danielson expressed his appreciation for the opportunity to dis-
cuss matters of interest to the Board and indicated he would have
complete reports at future meetings.
I/ Mr . McDonald then provided his Director ' s report. He indicated
that he has been appointed a member of the Colorado delegation to the
Arkansas River Compact Administration. His initial experience suggests
that there is going to be significant controversy in the future in the
Arkansas Basin.
He reported that the Dallas Creek project highway relocation is
completed and that the contractor is moving on-site for construction.
The Dolores project has been frustrated by a delay and construction
will begin in the spring.
-7-