BOARD00463 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

J .- ~. . . . years and to consider in what roles the two agencies could best be of service to Colorado water users. At the Water & Power Authority Board meeting on October 25th of this year, I suggested that the boards of the two agencies appoint representatives to a joint committee to review the 1990 MOU. I will ask you to appoint a subcommittee to work with the Authority's subcommittee to evaluate the existing MOU and propose any necessary revisions. Animas La-Plata Negotiations continue on the Animas La-Plata Project between the project supporters and opponents. A significant agreement has been reached between the parties regarding activities to be conducted while the negotiations are ongoing. This agreement is referred to as a "Stand Still Agreement" and a copy is attached for your review. The two activities which we are involved with as an agency, the cost sharing agreement and possible revisions, and the transfer of the pumping plant lands from the Department of Health to our agency will not be moved forward until after January 12, 1998 as our commitment to this process. Upper Basin Recovery Program We participated in the meeting between the water users and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) with Regional Director Ralph Morgenwick. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the concerns that have been raised by the water users with the status of the Recovery Program. Additionally, the Board has directed me to send a letter expressing our concerns as well. It was apparent that there is a considerable amount of frustration not only by the water users, but also by the FWS. Ralph Morgenwick responded by raising several issues they have, including: I) the ability of the smaller water users to impact the program in a negative way while still receiving benefits, 2) funding and cost sharing issues, 3) the need to return to meaningful discussions concerning long-term funding legislation, 4) the need for the water users to sit down and work with the environmental community to resolve differences, 5) the lack of progress in obtaining decrees in the water court for the protection of flows, 6) the need to work with individual projects to address specific operations which impact the recovery of the fish, and 7) the fact that the recovery program is continually evolving and that there will be problems in the future, but that we need to continue to seek solutions. He is willing to explore new policy directions which could aid in reducing conflict. I sense that there is an opportunity, particularly through the 15 Mile Reach strategy review process to address many of the issues and that there is an opportunity to meet with the environmental interests to find an acceptable approach that will provide greater certainty to the water users.