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

Kuhn:

Harrison:

Kuhn:

Harrison:

Wright:

I could suggest, and this would be in the form of a motion that is not yet...we
want to throw it out for discussion, and that's that we would move or we would
direct the staff to proceed with a final notice on the recovery water right that
would be at least one day junior to the base flow, making it clear they are separate
rights, separate flow 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

Minutes of October 10, 1995 Special CWCB Meeting

/