Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Item #3 & #4 - Policy Statement on Elkhead Enlargement and Financial Mitigation for the real <br />world impact of administration. <br /> <br />Wright: <br /> <br />Werner: <br /> <br />Harrison: <br /> <br />All: <br /> <br />Harrison: <br /> <br />I would make a motion that the Board pass a resolution to be sent to local water <br />users, government officials and other interested parties indicating our commitment to <br />new or expanded storage in the Yampa River Basin as a crucial element to continued <br />water development and recovery of the listed species, that we further recognize the <br />appropriateness of attempting to mitigate the real world costs that will be incurred by <br />water users on the Yampa River due to the implementation of in stream flows and <br />potential water administration on the Yampa. <br /> <br />I second that. <br /> <br />Questions? Any questions from the public? All in favor indicate by saying Aye. <br /> <br />Aye <br /> <br />Opposed? It carries. Very Good. Now, there may be a couple more details. Let me <br />raise one policy thing that I think we may need to touch on, having to do with <br />modifiability. The decision to go forward at all, the soonest we think we can file a <br />case in water court under the guidelines of the Snowmass opinion and under current <br />legislation, I mean even if other legislation doesn't happen, that will be all right. <br />Either we'll get a decree that explicitly allows modification and we'll be all right, and <br />if we don't, we can withdraw and get out of it...we can back out. I think that we <br />ought to take action to specify that our decision to move forward is conditional, that <br />our appropriative intent is conditional on our ability to modify. If it tums out not to <br />be there, then we don't have a case, we don't have a water right. I think that we <br />would probably need to state something like this. One of the hot potatoes embedded <br />in this, I think it shows up as a request to the AG's for some help on how to word all <br />of that. First of all, am I right in sensing that's where this Board's at, on the question <br />of going forward, only if we're sure of modifiability? <br /> <br />Smith: I make a motion to that effect, David. <br /> <br />Harrison: <br /> <br />Meyring: <br /> <br />Harrison: <br /> <br />All: <br /> <br />Harrison: <br /> <br />Given that this is a direction to AG for some legal help, you may not need to be more <br />definite. There's a motion. Is there a second? <br /> <br />I'll second. <br /> <br />OK. Any more needs to be said on that? Any comments from the public on that? <br />All in favor indicate by saying Aye. <br /> <br />Aye. <br /> <br />Opposed? That carries. (end transcription of motions) <br /> <br />Minutes of October 10, 1995 Special CWCB Meeting <br />