Laserfiche WebLink
<br />rights in the South Platte. It would be of benefit to both parties and <br />will reduce the capacity necessary for storage in Chatfield. <br /> <br />It is a rather complex agreement. We are insisting that certain things <br />be carried out in that contract, which we think are of mutual advantage <br />to everyone concerned. I'm very hopeful that within the next few days <br />we can finalize that contract and the whole problem of both chatfield <br />and the Foothills Plant will be resolved, and that will take care of <br />the problem of some of the other municipalities in the metropolitan <br />area. <br /> <br />At the same time, we will pursue legislation in the Congress to add <br />conservation storage to Chatfield Reservoir, so that if future demands <br />occur--and it appears that they will occur--for future storage in Chat- <br />field, we can accommodate that increased storage. That, however, will <br />be under contract with the Corps of Engineers, and charges will be made <br />by the united States for any storage above the conservation pool as <br />presently established., <br /> <br />This board, in effect, has the operational responsibility for Chatfield <br />Reservoir up to an elevation of 5,432 feet, which is the top of the <br />conservation pool. <br /> <br />That concludes the summary, Mr. chairman. <br /> <br />MR., STAPLETON: Any'questions? (NO response.) Thanks very,much,.Felix. <br /> <br />We will now go to agenda item NO.4, the consideration of streamflows, <br />final recommendations for pitkin County. <br /> <br />MR., SPARKS: Mr. Chairman, those recommendations are in accordance with <br />the agreement that was worked out with the federal government and. with <br />the various agencies of the State, particularly Pitkin county and the <br />Southeast District and this board, relating to the increase of minimum <br />streamflows in accordance with the recommendations made by the United <br />States Forest Service, the Fish and wildlife Service, and the Colorado <br />Division of Wildlife. They were considered in preliminary status at the <br />last Board meeting. There is no controversy anymore that I know of <br />surrounding these recommendations. The staff recommends that they be <br />approved. <br /> <br />There was, as you know, some two or three years of controversy and <br />various federal and State litigation concerning these streamflows. But <br />it appears now that it has all been resolved. This board should now <br />move forward in implementing its portion of the agreement, which was to <br />'obtain the minimum streamflows as set forth in this recommendation. <br /> <br />MR. STAPLETON: I will entertain a motion that they be approved. <br /> <br />MR. SHERMAN: So moved. <br /> <br />MR. VANDEMOER: ,Second. <br /> <br />MR. STAPLETON: It has been moved and seconded that the streamflows for <br /> <br />-18- <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br />