My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP10820
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
10001-10999
>
WSP10820
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 3:14:51 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 4:33:59 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8282.200.10.D.2
Description
UCRBRIP
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Date
5/22/1995
Author
CWCB
Title
UCRBRIP Program Board Memos Item 14 Transcription
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Board Memo
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />, <br />.-" ,I <br /> <br />Transcription Item 14 <br />Report from Executive Session <br />May 22-23 CWCB Board Meeting <br /> <br />Tape 3 <br />1434 - 1820 <br /> <br />Janice: <br /> <br />Executive Session report.. . Jennifer? <br /> <br />Jennifer Gimbel: <br /> <br />The Board met in executive session yesterday evening and then <br />again at lunch today, and I'll give a brief cast(?) there is some <br />Board action to be taken on several of these items. <br />With respect to the Union Park Case, which was item 12a (viii) <br />the Board discussed trial strategy, working with the opposers, by <br />getting ready for the June status conference, and what direction we <br />may take, depending on what the judge says at that time. Same <br />thing with Dominquez Reservoir, we talked a little bit more about <br />the trial strategy, the overfiling case made on the W429 case. <br />There was no further discussion on the TNC donation, there was <br />no discussion on Snowmass Creek. With respect to the Highland <br />Ninemile case, the Board discussed the possibility of entering some <br />king of appearance in that case, and I believe there is a motion to <br />be made on the Highland Ninemile Case. <br /> <br />Janice: <br /> <br />Do I hear a motion from the Board? I believe we are considering <br />the idea of a motion on policy issues? <br /> <br />Jennifer: <br /> <br />I believe that what it was for. It was an amicus brief regarding the <br />operating plant principles, or the operating plant. <br /> <br />Alan: <br /> <br />I so move. <br /> <br />Janice: <br /> <br />Is there a second? <br /> <br />Patricia Wells: <br /> <br />Second. <br /> <br />Janice: <br /> <br />Can we phrase it better? <br /> <br />Jennifer: <br /> <br />I think the motion is to join the brief of the State Engineer? <br /> <br />Wendy Weiss(?): <br /> <br />Actually no, on this one the motion is for the Board to File for an <br />amicus brief supporting the legality of the operating principles. <br /> <br />Janice: <br /> <br />That was your motion? <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.