Laserfiche WebLink
<br />., '{ J <br /> <br />preserve the accretions in that reach to the degree that they are <br />there, so that some subsequent development does not take place <br />that involves new diversions being commenced in the 15 mile <br />reach that take advantage of some of that water that we're counting <br />on for fish recovery. But the intention is not to preclude various <br />kinds of changes that might have the effect of changing the return <br />flow regimes, particularly we do not want to preclude water <br />conservation changes, we know that those are going to be <br />happening, and that they will affect return flow. I think what the <br />thrust of the motion is to recognize that there will be gradual shifts <br />from irrigation to municipal, for Clifton and Grand Junction, and <br />that those changes are not intended to be precluded by our <br />preliminary appropriate intent in this case. I think it will take <br />some very careful language to be worked out, but I think that the <br />way Eric expressed the motion is the overall thrust of what we're <br />trying to do. <br /> <br />Wendy (off): <br /> <br />My understanding is that within the GVrC (?) ditch water is also <br />moved around just from irrigation to irrigation. Is it your intent <br />that, to actually work out some language which resolves to make <br />clear that you don't intend to prevent that? <br /> <br />Alan: <br /> <br />That's correct. <br /> <br />Janice: <br /> <br />r didn't know if our discussion was broader, and included some <br />type of changes in point of diversion to be considered, this is <br />talking about in the ditch, we had discussed a little further, and I <br />wasn't sure.. <br /> <br />David: <br /> <br />The Clifton change and possibly Grand Junction, may both incur <br />changes upon the diversion actually out of the ditch, what Wendy <br />just mentioned involved changes occur from time to time within <br />the ditch. I don't think we can be that specific with our motion as <br />yet, I think we're asking the AG to work on some specific <br />language to express the limitation on our appropriate intent, and <br />we need to get them started on it. <br /> <br />Janice: <br /> <br />Is there further discussion? All those in favor? <br /> <br />All <br /> <br />Aye. <br /> <br />Janice: <br /> <br />Opposed? <br /> <br />Jennifer: <br /> <br />Okay, then there was really no further discussion on the Orchard <br />Mesa check case or the other fifteen mile reach case. This <br />afternoon at lunch the Board took up the Forest Service case in <br /> <br />3 <br />