Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />-', <br /> <br />. (begin transcription) <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />David Harrison: <br /> <br />Patricia Wells: <br /> <br />David Harrison: <br /> <br />Patricia Wells: <br /> <br />All right, now we're ready to come back to order and the Board has as <br />much before it as its going to have as a practical matter, in order to take <br />action on this thing today. I know some of you have been working away <br />to try and frame the issue a little bit. Eric or Patti, or anybody...does <br />anybody want to offer up a motion? <br /> <br />I'll take a stab, I think Eric will have some refining words when I'm done. <br />This is a motion for the Yampa. I move the adoption of the wildlife/.staff <br />option recommendation on base flow for the Yampa River, and we should <br />ensure that the carveout will be available with regard to that base flow, and <br />I also believe that our final notice allows us to me for these different <br />nwnbers...that our final notice reserve the ability for us to be able to do <br />this. Second, I move to me in a separate ming on a recovery right. The <br />recovery right should be the available flow remaining in the Yampa after <br />the development of a carve out of 52,000 acre feet, which may be <br />subsequently modified up to an addition 72,000 acre feet, reserving the <br />Board's right to quantify those flows as may be appropriate. The carveout <br />should be distributed on a monthly or some other basis, and should include <br />a range within each segment so as to allow us to take care of different <br />runoff years. The carveout should be calculated using both junior and <br />senior conditional water rights, but not absolute senior water rights. The <br />criteria for increasing the carveout pursuant to paragraph 4 of the <br />enforcement agreement should be whether and to what extent failure to <br />increase the carveout would deprive the people of Colorado of the <br />beneficial use of water available under interstate compacts, and whether <br />and to what extent increasing the carveout would continue to preserve the <br />environment of the listed fish species to a reasonable degree. The carveout <br />could be further enlarged above the additional 72,000 acre feet if <br />hydrologies should change over time. There should be provisions in the <br />decree that would provide for a termination of the right, those provisions <br />should include at least the provisions in the enforcement agreement. The <br />decree should contain language to prevent the imposition of bypass flows, <br />as that issue has been negotiated, and is being negotiated in the 92CW286 <br />case, and should also contain language to protect changes in exchanges, <br />also as now being proposed in the draft decree and being negotiated in the <br />286 case. That's it. <br /> <br />That's all? <br /> <br />I'm sure there's more. <br /> <br />Minutes of December 13, 1995 Special CWCB Meeting <br />