BOARD00808

• Board Meeting Date: 10/10/1995
• Description: Draft Summary Mintues and Record of Decisions - October 10, 1995 Special Meeting
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Meeting

Item #3 & #4 - Policy Statement on Elkhead Enlargement and Financial Mitigation for the real
world impact of administration.

Wright:

Harrison:

All:

Harrison:

Smith:

Harrison:

Meyring:

Harrison:

All:

Harrison:

I would make a motion that the Board pass a resolution to be sent to local water
users, government officials and other interested parties indicating our commitment
to new or expanded storage in the Yampa River Basin as a crucial element to
continued water development and recovery of the listed species, that we further
recognize the appropriateness of attempting to mitigate the real world costs that
will be incurred by water users on the Yampa River due to the implementation of
instream flows and potential water administration on the Yampa.

Questions? Any questions from the public? All in favor indicate by saying Aye.

Aye

Opposed? It carries. Very Good. Now, there may be a couple more details. Let
me raise one policy thing that I think we may need to touch on, having to do with
modifiability. The decision to go forward at all, the soonest we think we can file
a case in water court under the guidelines of the Snowmass opinion and under
current legislation, I mean even if other legislation doesn't happen, that will be all
right. Either we'll get a decree that explicitly allows modification and we'll be
all right, and if we don't, we can withdraw and get out of it...we can back out.
I think that we ought to take action to specify that our decision to move forward
is conditional, that our appropriative intent is conditional on our ability to modify.
If it turns out not to be there, then we don't have a case, we don't have a water
right. I think that we would probably need to state something like this. One of
the hot potatoes embedded in this, I think it shows up as a request to the AG's for
some help on how to word all of that. First of all, am I right in sensing that's
where this Board's at, on the question of going forward, only if we're sure of
modifiability?

I make a motion to that effect, David.

Given that this is a direction to AG for some legal help, you may not need to be
more definite. There's a motion. Is there a second?

I'll second.

OK. Any more needs to be said on that? Any comments from the public on that?
All in favor indicate by saying Aye.

Aye.

Opposed? That carries. (end transcription of motions)

Minutes of October 10, 1995 Special CWCB Meeting