Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />problem. Mr. Getches replied that all alternatives <br />explored with the realization that some flows would <br />but not in excess of compact delivery obligations. <br />that the funding of recovery efforts is certainly a <br />obligation. <br /> <br />were being <br />be required, <br />He also noted <br />federal <br /> <br />Mr. Johnson then asked how accurate the U. S. Fish and <br />Wildlife Service's studies were. Mr. Getches noted that <br />certainly not all the questions have been answered and more work <br />needs to be done. <br /> <br />Following considerable discussion of the above and related <br />matters, which included comments from the audience, Attorney <br />General Woodard was asked if an opinion from his office on the <br />compact issues would be appropriate. It was Ultimately concluded <br />that such would not be needed at this time. However, the <br />Attorney General was asked to follow the matter as needed and <br />keep the Board advised accordingly. <br /> <br />Agenda Item 14 - Overview of Instream Flow Issues (Appendix H) <br /> <br />At the July, 1985, Board meeting, Mr. McDonald had suggested <br />that it might be desirable for the Board to review issues which <br />are likely to arise in the future with respect to the Board's <br />instream flow program. With the Board's concurrence, the staff <br />had prepared an outline of such issues (Appendix H). <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Following discussion, the Board concluded that no action on <br />these issues should be taken at this time. It was agreed that <br />until the specific circumstances in which any given issue arises <br />were before the Board, further deliberations would be premature. <br /> <br />Agenda Item 15 - Instream Flow Program <br />a. preliminary Notices (Division 1 and 5) (Appendix I) <br /> <br />Mr. Gene Jencsok briefly discussed the staff's <br />recommendations for filings in Division 1 and 5. He noted <br />that no comments had been received. <br /> <br />b. Final Notices (Division 1) (Appendix J) <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Individuals speaking in favor of the proposed filings on <br />the Cache la Poudre River included Steve Puttmann, Colorado <br />Division of Wildlife; Reed Kelley, Colorado Wildlife <br />Federation; Jim Belsey, Trout Unlimited; and Jim Schmaul, <br />Rocky Mountain Flycasters. Bill Fischer, attorney for the <br />Cache la Poudre Water Users Association, asked that Board <br />action be postponed pending completion of a Cache la poudre <br />basinwide study by the Water Resources and Power Development <br />Authority. Mr. Johnson supported postponment of action <br />until the November meeting to afford him an opportunity to <br />become more familar with the issues, both pro and con. <br /> <br />-7- <br /> <br />.. <br />