BOARD00529

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

Harrison:

Kuhn:

Harrison:

Wright:

applications. And that that flow would be for all of the remaining hydrograph, or in
the alternative, the 20% exceedence flows in the months of August through March,
and 10% exceedence flows in the months of April through July, giving us the option
that one could surface politically or sink, OK. We make it very clear in the
application that the Board will agree to term and conditions in the decree to limit
exercising the right until at least an additional 52,000 cf of consumptive use on an
average annual basis, and distributed monthly upstream of the Maybell gage has
occurred. And further, once that 52,000 af has occurred, we would agree to limit the
exercise of the water right until an additional, I'll throw out, at least an additional
72,000 af of water has been developed or until Colorado has reached full compact
development under the 1992 and 1948 compact. So if its 5,000, you know,
whichever occurs first, you see what I'm saying...basically behind my motion is the
concept that what we're doing is telling people that we're going to agree to terms and
conditions to allow that to occur. We're not going to spell out that this is a 10 year
running average or table values...those kinds of things will have to be worked out.

I'm a little confused on the part about the 72,000. You're saying modifiability?

Yeah. In other words, once we reach the 52,000, we will agree to modify...well, I
don't want to say we're modifying the right...what we're agree to do is to further limit
exercising the right until at least an additional 72,000 af of development have
occurred, or until Colorado has reached full compact development under the 1922
and 1948 compacts. So what were really doing is delaying our exercising of our
right until we reach that level of development. We're agreeing to terms and
conditions. I'm leery of using the word modifiability...I'm not sure we're modifying
the water right, what we're really agreeing to do is limit our exercise of the right so it
allows a certain level of development. Maybe they're one and the same..maybe I
shouldn't make a distinction.

We may ask our lawyers for guidance on what words. The word modification occurs
in our rules and regulations now, and that might be a reason to do it. And I know
that concept modification is a subject(?) of Snowmass case, and that might be a
reason to call it something else, but it may be whatever we call it, we're going to need
to face up to it.

Let's face it. The paragraph 4 water, for lack of a better term, is gong to be more
difficult to get after than the carve out. I think because we're going to have to deal
with the issues of the fish biology in that part. And remaining compact water. so
there's a whole lot more thrown into it than what we have considered to be a
reasonable amount of water for future development on the Yampa. So we can't be...I
don't think we want to soft shoe the thing too much, but if we can determine that
these types of developments can go forward, the timing might be somewhat different,
the quantities, its going to be a little tougher. I think if we make that clear, I'm kind
of with Eric, if we're going for all unappropriated waters with the provisions that
we're willing to not define that, I mean we're putting in...we're defining that we don't

Minutes of October 10, 1995 Special CWCB Meeting