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

Wells:

Harrison:

Wells:

Kuhn:

Wells;

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..J 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 start pushing on this one until the 52's
gone, and then we don't start pushing on the other one as long as additional
increments of development are determined to not be adversely impacting the
recovery of the fish. We kind of run our own little section 7 with that.

I think that's, I mean with the 52,000, we don't get into the act at all. Basically,
we're not there, we're not participating. But one you get past the 52, which as I
understand it, is the recently foreseeable development, its over a long period of
time, but I want to tell John that when you provide water for humans, 40 years is
a minimum of time, because they live a lot longer than that. But to look to that
horizon. So that's a reasonably foreseeable, generous, I think, development
allowance that should take care of what people think will happen. so we ought
to stay out of that all together. After that, I think we ought not to say we won't
exercise it unless at least 72,000, I think what we have to do after that is say, then
we have to look at it case by case, based upon the fish biology. Where are we
now? so what we have hopefully done is given an amount that is a reasonable
allowance for growth for forty years, and also an amount that is low enough that
the fish shouldn't suffer with that development spread out in this manner. So
we're not in it at all at the beginning, and then we are in it after that. I don't
think you can say anything like another 72,000 is OK, because I don't think
that's...

But how far would you go...would you go beyond 72?

No I would not go beyond 72.

I'm putting the outer limits on the modifiability of 72,000 af, I would suggest that
we enter into appropriate terms and conditions to modify the right, and those kind
of things that you're talking about are in the terms and conditions. To modify the
right, up to an additional...to allow an additional consumptive use of 50,000 which
may require a carveout above the 72. Now how the staff would word that in a
final notice is..

But based on the time, once you get past 52, based on an analysis in each case of
what harm might result to the stream and to the fish, you see what I mean?
Maybe we're being safe with 52, we think it won't harm the fish, we think it will
take care of reasonable growth. That's a great way to have carve out, we don't

Minutes of October 10, 1995 Special CWCB Meeting