Laserfiche WebLink
<br />extent the proposed Kansas resolution purported to reach conclusions <br />about a decree ef a Colorado water court, the Administration had no <br />authoritv to reach conclusions about such a decree. <br />With ~respect to the process for dealing with the issues concerning <br />the operation of Trinidad Reservoir, Mr. McDonald indicated that it <br />had been his understanding that when the proposed resolution con. <br />cl;'rning Trinidad Reservoir offered by Kansas at the January .t, 1982, <br />annual meeting of the Administration failed to pass (see Attachment E <br />to the minutes of that meeting), Kansas considered the matter to be <br />out of the hands of the Administration. Mr. McDonald further noted <br />that he understood this matter to be in the hands of the Attorneys <br />General of Kansas and Colorado in light of the meeting which the <br />Kansas Attorney General had requested with the Colorado Attorney <br />General in August, 1982, in Denver. Finally, Mr. McDonald noted that <br />the retiring Colorado Attorney General had not had the opportunity to <br />respond to the Kansas Attorney General because he wished to consult <br />with the Colorado Attorney General-elect, which he had not yet had the <br />opportunity to do. <br />Mr. Cooley asked at this point where the exchange of correspon- <br />dence between the Kansas and Colorado Attorneys General stood. Mr. <br />Campbell indicated that Kansas Attorney General Stephan had not <br />received a response to his initial October 12, 1982, letter to Colorado <br />Attorney General MacFarlane. Mr. Paddock reiterated that Mr. <br />MacFarlane wished to consult with the Attorney General-elect before <br />responding to Mr. Stephan's letter. <br />Considerable discussion then ensued among the members of the <br />Administration, Mr. Campbell, and Mr. Paddock concerning various <br />allegations and statements in the resolutions proposed by Colorado and <br />Kansas. There was also a lengthy discussion between Mr. Campbell <br />and Mr. Paddock concerning what were questions of fact, whether <br />Kansas had or had not presented information contradicting that <br />presented by Colorado, and how the two Attorneys General expected to <br />proceed. At 3:05 p.m. Mr. Cooley called for a recess. <br />At 3:50 p.m. the meeting was reconvened by Mr. Cooley. Some <br />additional discussion concerning the substitute motion was had, after <br />which Mr. McDonald called for the question on the substitute motion. <br />The question having been called for, Colorado voted yes and Kansas <br />voted no, whereupon the substitute motion was declared lost. Mr. <br />Cooley then advised that the original motion was now before the <br />Administration. There being no further discussion, Colorado voted no <br />and Kansas voted yes, whereupon the original motion was declared <br />lost. <br />Mr. Olomon then moved, seconded by Mr. Genova, that the <br />Administration instruct Mr. Cooley to write to the Attorneys General of <br />Colorado and Kansas and ask them to communicate with each other on <br />the issues concerning the operation of Trinidad ReserVoir and report <br />their discussions at a special meeting of the Administration to be held <br />on February I, 1983. There being no discussion, the motion was passed <br />upon the affirmative vote of both states. The letter which Mr. Cooley <br />subsequently sent is included as Attachment J. <br />Mr. . McDonald then moved, seconded by Mr. Bentrup, that the <br />Administration ask the Administrative and Legal Committee to meet <br /> <br />45 <br />