Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />.\ <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Janice Sheftel: <br /> <br />And it think it's also in the application, so...(general mumbling and paper <br />noises)..if the first and second will accept that strikeout. <br /> <br />Patricia Wells: Sure <br /> <br />Eric Kuhn: OK <br /> <br />David Harrison: <br /> <br />Trish Bangert(?): <br /> <br />David Harrison: <br /> <br />OK. Jennifer is suggesting that we go back here on the fmdings of <br />purpose on 5, with that language that we're just goofmg around with on <br />"assisting". There is a sentence in the enforcement agreement that may <br />be our best guide, and it has to do with...the sentence is that "the Board <br />shall make a fmding, that that is the purpose of every appropriation or <br />acquisition, which is for the benefit of the listed species"...1 think I've got <br />this scrambled here. "This agreement applies to, and only to, water rights <br />or interest in water appropriated or acquired by the Board for streamflow <br />limitation program (?) to preserve the natural environment within a <br />particular stream reach for the benefit of the listed species in the Upper <br />Colorado River Basin. The Board shall make a fmding that that is the <br />purpose of every appropriational acquisition which is for the benefit of the <br />listed species." So, the enforcement agreement basically is stating that <br />when we are making a water right for the recovery program, that it fits <br />under the enforcement agreement that we need to make that finding. The <br />fmding we need to make is what? ThaLOK, so I think that what we can <br />do then take the language here...it says "the purpose of these appropriations <br />is to preserve the natural environment to a reasonable degree" and <br />is...including "for the benefit of the endangered fish and their habitat in the <br />Yampa River." Yes, Counselor? <br /> <br />I would like to just ask a question for the record....not with the way the <br />motion is made, but one of my concerns was that the option be there for <br />the Board to remain with its appropriation as for the remaining flow after <br />taking into account the carveout and the modifiability, that we're going <br />ahead with the maximum appropriation, but with the way we phrased it, <br />that would allow us to quantify the appropriate word(?) also allow the <br />Board to determine an alternative method for appropriating its flow in <br />Court should it so decide. This would include quantification as opposed <br />to just _(?) I just wanted to... <br /> <br />What Patti said was reserving the right to quantify flows as appropriate, <br />and quantify is a little bit funny..I mean we get focused on the amount of <br />wateLwhat we're really talking about here is how we describe iLwhat is <br />it that we are describing? Quantitatively, what we're talking about is <br />something damn near all of the water left after the carveout is fully used <br />up, as subsequently modified. And we can try to describe that in some <br /> <br />Minutes of December 13, 1995 Special CWCB Meeting <br />