BOARD00529

• Board Meeting Date: 10/10/1995
• Description: Special Meeting Minutes - October 10, 1995
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Minutes

into our motion because it really does, I think, bind your hands when it comes to
working with the Service and the water users in developing the terms and conditions
that meet both of their needs.

Evans: So all you're suggesting is that all these kinds of conditions could be mellulously(?) clumped
together into something that we'll work out later, and maybe we'll better understand
Tom's suggestion about expansion(?) of Elkhead or something else, we can include
them or not as we...

Kuhn:

Harrison:

Lile:

Harrison:

Lile:

Harrison:

Kuhn:

We're going to have to work it out, because they're going to file statement of
opposition and they're going to sit down and say we're not going to agree to a decree
unless you do this, this, and this. OK? And that's just the way of life on these rivers.
You know?

Chuck? Did you have...

Well, I was just looking at Tom Sharp's....he said....partly his concern was that as
long as the MOA between the Fish and Wildlife Service and CWCB is in effect, that
this isn't an impact of , and then he suggested a 50 year alliance. So those
were the two things that he suggested. I just thought I'd tell you what he had in his
notes.

I liked the way Eric left it myself. If we want to put a termination possibility to this
thing that's tied to the recovery plan itself or the enforcement agreement or whatnot,
that's one thing, but a specific years sunset, I don't like that at all, that gives us
nothing but trouble.

It seems like to me, that sooner or later, if this all works properly, that compact
delivery requirements will merge with the water right requirements. So then the
governing thing will be the interstate compacts.

Now, we've kicked some of this around. Does that give you enough to go back and
remake the motion as a motion? Does anyone else have any comments or questions
about the general thrust of where Eric is going with this? Give it a shot.

I would move that we direct the staff to proceed with the final notice with a recovery
program right which is at least one day junior to our base flow, and that the amount
of flow be for all the remaining water except for the development allowances, or in
the alternative the 20% exceedence flows in the base months, and the 10%
exceedence flows in the runoff months, and that in our proposed application, the
Water Conservation Board will agree to appropriate terms and conditions to limit
exercising the right until at least an additional 52,000 acre feet of consumptive use on
an average annual basis and distributed monthly, upstream of the Maybell gage has
occurred. That we would further agree to terms and conditions to modify the right to
allow at least an additional 72,000 acre feet or.... up to an additional 72,000 acre feet

Minutes of October 10, 1995 Special CWCB Meeting