Laserfiche WebLink
<br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />e. 5-92CW030; Gessner and Robson <br />f. 5-92CW031; Perkins <br /> <br />Anne Janicki, CWCB staff, identified items 26a and 26b as applications for storage <br />rights in natural lakes for which only the Board may be granted such a decree and <br />items 26c, d, e, and f as having the potential to injure instream flow rights held by the <br />Board. Janicki next reviewed the staff recommendation. A motion was made by <br />Sheftel and seconded by Smith to adopt the staff recommendation to ratify the <br />statements of opposition filed in items 26 a, b, C, d, e, and f to protect the Board's <br />instream flow rights. The motion passed by unanimous (8-0) decision. <br /> <br />27a. Stipulation: 1-87CW315; Allenspark (deleted) <br /> <br />27b. Stipulation: 1-87CW2.70; Cache la poudre River* (5:47 - 5:53 p.m.) <br /> <br />Anne Janicki, CWCB staff, introduced the stipulation that recognizes that the Board's <br />decree shall not be construed to require releases of water from Long Draw Reservoir <br />or to prevent the operation of historic exchanges, and further provides that the Board's <br />decree shall not be "stacked" together with any instream flow rights awarded to the <br />United States of America pursuant to the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Discussion <br />followed by Sheftel, Smith, Harrison, Eisel, and Duncan. Linda PresIan. AG staff, <br />answered questions. A motion was made by Harrison and seconded by Eisel to <br />approve the staff recommendation to ratify the proposed stipulation in the case to <br />protect the Board's instream flow water rights. The motion passed by unanimous (8-0) <br />decision. <br /> <br />27c. Stipulation: 1-87CW303; Beaver Brook. (5:53 - 6:02 p.m.) <br /> <br />Anne Janicki, CWCB staff, introduced the proposed stipulation that requires that the <br />CWCB will amend its pending instream flow application to provide for segmentation <br />of the original instream flow reach and revised summer-winter flows on both segments <br />and that the applicants shall bypass, at the North Beaver Brook Pipeline, as much <br />water as is required up to the natural flow, to satisfy the applicable instream flow on <br />the upper segment. This requirement applies to the applicant's right to divert water <br />under the proposed exchange and to the applicant's right to divert water under any of <br />the applicant's water rights which divert from North Beaver Brook. The applicant has <br />also agreed to withdraw its statement of opposition in the Board's pending application. <br />Questions were asked by Harrison and Lochhead. Answers were provided by Jennifer <br />Gimbel, AG staff, and Jay Skinner, DOW. A motion was made by Harrison and <br />seconded by Eisel to approve the staff recommendation to ratify the proposed <br />stipulation in the case to protect the Board's instream flow water rights and directed <br />the staff to re-examine the statutory language. The motion passed by unanimous (7-0) <br />decision. <br /> <br />May 1992 Meeting, page 19 <br />