BOARD00850 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

, November 1999 meeting. The Defenders of Miners Creek and Trout Unlimited were generally '....- , supportive of the settlement proposal. . On January 3, 2000, staff received the attached draft decree as a counterproposal from the Applicant. The counterproposal is inconsistent with the Board's direction at the November 1999 meeting because it does not limit impacts of the proposed exchange to the 300 yard reach of the Blue River between the Breckenridge Water and Sanitation District diversion structure (see Paragraph 7b). The draft decree also contains several passages that inappropriately characterize the nature of the Board's instream flow water rights in relation to the Applicant's transdrainage diversions from Miners Creek into the Blue River. For instance, Paragraphs 5 and 6 both indicate that the water diverted from Miners Creek into the Blue River is "not part of the flo..y decreed for the Upper Blue River in Case Nos. 86CW204 and 86CW2l7." CWCB and AGO staffs do not believe that the CWCB agrees with the Applicant's interpretation. of its transdrainage diversions, Neither Trout Unlimited nor the Defenders of Miners Creek support the Applicant's proposal for pretrial resolution. Staff Recommendation Based on the direction provided by the Board at its November 1999 meeting and the current status of the negotiations, staff recommends that the Board: 3) Reject Applicant's proposed pretrial resolution, Direct staff to continue to attempt to negotiate a pretrial resolution and provide staff with dire.ction on acceptable ~ettlement offers, and Authorize staff to proceed to trial in this case if no pretrial resolution can be negotiated. - 1) 2) Attachments CWCB Board Memo, PreTrial Resolution-JanOO t