Laserfiche WebLink
<br />? <br /> <br />Harrison: <br /> <br />Harnill(?): <br /> <br />Harrison: <br /> <br />Kuhn: <br /> <br />Harrison: <br /> <br />sounds to me like its nearly ready to go, but not quite. <br /> <br />Inaudible...where the 345....farbelow.... <br /> <br />He wants to...this is the same July problem.... <br /> <br />Well, 80% of the runoff months gave us numbers that were much higher than the <br />concept of a base flow, ok, in other words it did not accomplish the purpose of a base <br />flow to have a 80% exeedence number which was around 4,000 cfs, what was it <br />Gene? In the neighborhood of 3900 cfs? 4,000 cfs. In other words, when you <br />started to exceed these numbers, it took it outside the realm of a base flow. <br /> <br />Its not clear that you need a number base flow, in at least May and June the heart of <br />the runoff. April you sometimes would, and July you sometimes will. You can put <br />the 325 as a surrogate in there just in case you had a really weird year and the first <br />couple of weeks in May were dry, still behaving like a base flow, you'd some number <br />there Once the runoff starts, the concept goes away. maybe that though is subsumed <br />(sic) in the comment that we've got to take a second look at July and how to treat it, <br />maybe the same thing applies to April, I don't know. <br /> <br />That would be fair. I said winter months. You can take that to be January through <br />April... <br /> <br />OK, well, given that the action today is to move from preliminary to final, and staff is <br />going to be looking at it, it may not need to be more precise than that for now but its <br />an issue staff will deal with. Are there any other questions from Board or public on <br />this? If not... <br /> <br />Smith: I have one question. In Eric's well thought out and well presented policy issues, there was <br />one concerning by pass flows and permits and how these might be perceived and <br />what mayor may not be a bypass flow. I'd appreciate anybody comment if they <br />forsee that this mayor may not be that, because its a really important issue not only <br />in the Yampa basin, but statewide. <br /> <br />Kuhn?: Let me address that. In the case of the 581, and in the 15 mile reach, a number of opposers <br />raised the issue of this is fine, this is a CWCB junior right, but what we fear is that <br />federal agencies, not just the Service, but federal agencies might ignore the priority <br />of your right and require future water rights to not divert or to bypass flows <br />whenever there was a shortage to that right. Essentially, we got around that issue by <br />agreeing or tentatively agreeing in concept to the fact that effectively a poison pill in <br />the decree that if the Service did ignore the priority of the right, we no longer had a <br />Water Conservation Board in stream flow right, that the right would not be exercised <br />, and I think that there was also some weasel wording in there that would allow <br />voluntarily a proponent and the Service agreed to it, and everyone did it amicably, it <br />wasn't a forced type of thing, that it would not cause us to take a poison pill, if you <br /> <br />Minutes of October 10, 1995 Special CWCB Meeting <br />