BOARD00349

• Board Meeting Date: 9/9/1980
• Description: CWCB Meeting
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Meeting

COLORADO WATER CONSERVATION BOARD
823 State Centennial Building
1313 Sherman Street
Denver, Colorado 80203

September 2, 1980

M E M 0 RAN DUM

TO: Members, Colorado Water Conservation Board

FROM: J. William McDonald, Director

SUBJECT: Agenda Item No. 5 -- Review of the Procedures Used by
the Board when Acting on Minimum Streamflow Appropria-
tions (September 9, 1980, Board Meeting)

At the July 8, 1980, Board Meeting considerable discussion
arose regarding the Board's action on the "Preliminary Recommenda-
tions" for minimum streamflow appropriations. The discussion
centered on the question of whether formal approval by the Board
was necessary on Preliminary Recommendations and, if so, on the
question of what significance such approval had.

These questions, along with recurring questions about notifi-
cation procedures (i.e., has the distribution of the notice been
sufficient to reach all interested parties, and has sufficient
time been given for review and response by these interested par-
ties?), have prompted a review of the procedures used by the staff
in making recommendations to the Board and a review of the pro-
cedures used by the Board when acting upon those re~ommendations.

Preliminary Notice/Final Notice Procedure

Early in the Board's dealings with the m~n~mum streamflow
program, the Preliminary Recommendation/Final Recommendation pro-
cedure was adopted. The purpose of the procedure was to provide
the public, as well as the Board, with adequate time for review
and comment prior to any final Board action. The Board's appro-
val of the Preliminary Recommendations by formal motion was merely
intended to signify that the recommendations had been received by
the Board and that the staff would be advancing those recommenda-
tions to the Final Recommendation list for consideration and ac-
tion at the following Board meeting. Approval of the Preliminary
Recommendations was intended only as a procedural step in the
public review process. It in no way reflected approval of the
stream recommendations themselves that could only corne as a
result of Board action on streams on the Final Recommendation List.