BOARD01276

• Board Meeting Date: 12/13/1995
• Description: Agenda or Table of Contents, Minutes, Memos - Special Meeting
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Meeting

All:

David Harrison:

Patricia Wells:

Eric Kuhn:

Ray Wright:

Eric Kuhn:

.

.

motion? If not, I'll call the question. All in favor of the motion, indicate -
by saying "Aye". .

Aye.

Opposed? Motion carries. Are we prepared to do something similar on
the Colorado?

Maybe Eric should make this motion. We can take all the changes to all
the...why don't we just say what's different?

All right, on the Colorado River 15 mile reach, the motion will be similar
to the Yampa, but there will be some differences. So, the motion will be
for an instream flow right in what we refer to the Fifteen Mile Reach,
which is the stretch of river from confluence of the Colorado and the
Gunnison river up to the Grand Valley Irrigation Company Diversion Dam.
For the base flow, the motion will be for what is considered the DOW/staff
recommendation for all the months with the exception of September. For
the month of September, it will be for 680 cfs as opposed to 810. In the
recovery right, again, it will be the same motion as the Yampa, with the
exception of the carveout will be for 100,000 acre feet, modifiable to a
total of 400,000 acre feet. And there is one thing...one additional item I
would like to throw out, is that in...the motion would be for all flows
remaining after the carveout reserving the right to quantify, as we did in
the Yampa river, but an additional qualification would be that we would
not exceed the flows recommended by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
in their report dated

.

By doing that...see now, I would...1've been real comfortable with all
remaining flows all along through the process here, so its just a matter of
people's perception of the term. If you put this qualifier on this, why then
we are by definition going to go back and quantify recovery flow amounts.

Well, there's a difference...and I think there's a very critical difference that
Tom Pitts brought out in the recommendations. I think the
recommendations from the Service for the Yampa River, especially in the
runoff months, were for the available hydrograph. Essentially, they were
for all of the flow, ok, less the carveout. In the fifteen mile reach, there
was no specific recommendation for all of the flow, OK. The
recommendations are those that are described on page 3 of the December
5 memo from Peter Evans to Gene Jencsok. And I want to be very careful
that we're not appropriating any more, OK, than what the Service is
recommending. Now I would have to say that its awfully hard to
determine what the Service is recommending, it is based on this table of

e

Minutes of December 13, 1995 Special eWeB Meeting