Laserfiche WebLink
<br />? <br /> <br />Harrison: <br /> <br />Hami1l(?) : <br /> <br />Harrison: <br /> <br />Kuhn: <br /> <br />Harrison: <br /> <br />Smith: <br /> <br />Kuhn?: <br /> <br />know, agreements, maybe some operating criteria, with Upper Yampa or <br />something, but sounds to me like its nearly ready to go, but not quite. <br /> <br />Inaudible...where the 345....far below.... <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 <br />a base flow to have a 80% exeedence number which was around 4,000 cfs, what <br />was it Gene? In the neighborhood of 3900 cfs? 4,000 cfs. In other words, when <br />you 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 <br />of the runoff. April you sometimes would, and July you sometimes will. Youcan <br />put the 325 as a surrogate in there just in case you had a really weird year and <br />the first couple of weeks in May were dry, still behaving like a base flow, you'd <br />some number there Once the runoff starts, the concept goes away. maybe that <br />though is subsumed (sic) in the comment that we've got to take a second look at <br />July and how to treat it, 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 <br />through April... <br /> <br />OK, well, given that the action today is to move from preliminary to final, and <br />staff is going to be looking at it, it may not need to be more precise than that for <br />now but its an issue staff will deal with. Are there any other questions from <br />Board or public on this? If not... <br /> <br />I have one question. In Eric's well thought out and well presented policy issues, <br />there was one concerning by pass flows and permits and how these might be <br />perceived and what mayor may not be a bypass flow. I'd appreciate anybody <br />comment if they forsee that this mayor may not be that, because its a really <br />important issue not only in the Yampa basin, but statewide. <br /> <br />Let me address that. In the case of the 581, and in the 15 mile reach, a number <br />of opposers raised the issue of this is fine, this is a CWCB junior right, but what <br />we fear is that federal agencies, not just the Service, but federal agencies might <br />ignore the priority of your right and require future water rights to not divert or to <br />bypass flows whenever there was a shortage to that right. Essentially, we got <br />around that issue by agreeing or tentatively agreeing in concept to the fact that <br />effectively a poison pill in the decree that if the Service did ignore the priority of <br />the right, we no longer had a Water Conservation Board instream flow right, that <br />the right would not be exercised , and I think that there was also some weasel <br /> <br />Minutes of October 10, 1995 Special CWCB Meeting <br />