Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Item #3 & #4 - Policy Statement on Elkhead Enlargement and Financial Mitigation for the real <br />world impact of administration. <br /> <br />Wright: <br /> <br />Harrison: <br /> <br />All: <br /> <br />Harrison: <br /> <br />Smith: <br /> <br />Harrison: <br /> <br />Meyring: <br /> <br />Harrison: <br /> <br />All: <br /> <br />Harrison: <br /> <br />I would make a motion that the Board pass a resolution to be sent to local water <br />users, government officials and other interested parties indicating our commitment <br />to new or expanded storage in the Yampa River Basin as a crucial element to <br />continued water development and recovery of the listed species, that we further <br />recognize the appropriateness of attempting to mitigate the real world costs that <br />will be incurred by water users on the Yampa River due to the implementation of <br />instream flows and potential water administration on the Yampa. <br /> <br />Questions? Any questions from the public? All in favor indicate by saying Aye. <br /> <br />Aye <br /> <br />Opposed? It carries. Very Good. Now, there may be a couple more details. Let <br />me raise one policy thing that I think we may need to touch on, having to do with <br />modifiability. The decision to go forward at all, the soonest we think we can me <br />a case in water court under the guidelines of the Snowmass opinion and under <br />current legislation, I mean even if other legislation doesn't happen, that will be all <br />right. Either we'll get a decree that explicitly allows modification and we'll be <br />all right, and if we don't, we can withdraw and get out of it...we can back out. <br />I think that we ought to take action to specify that our decision to move forward <br />is conditional, that our appropriative intent is conditional on our ability to modify. <br />If it turns out not to be there, then we don't have a case, we don't have a water <br />right. I think that we would probably need to state something like this. One of <br />the hot potatoes embedded in this, I think it shows up as a request to the AG's for <br />some help on how to word all of that. First of all, am I right in sensing that's <br />where this Board's at, on the question of going forward, only if we're sure of <br />modifiability? <br /> <br />I make a motion to that effect, David. <br /> <br />Given that this is a direction to AG for some legal help, you may not need to be <br />more definite. There's a motion. Is there a second? <br /> <br />I'll second. <br /> <br />OK. Any more needs to be said on that? Any comments from the public on that? <br />All in favor indicate by saying Aye. <br /> <br />Aye. <br /> <br />Opposed? That carries. (end transcription of motions) <br /> <br />Minutes of October 10,1995 Special CWCB Meeting <br />