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 />.,,1 ~' <br /> <br />J <br /> <br />recommendation, however, that we direct the AG's office to not <br />file this application with the water court before the first of <br />December, and to not file the application with the water court <br />without approval by the Board. <br /> <br />David Harrison: <br /> <br />Second. <br /> <br />Janice: <br /> <br />Is there discussion? <br /> <br />David Harrison: <br /> <br />Yes, one other thing, just to elaborate. This is very cryptic, the <br />way we're doing it, but we are making the findings that are <br />required by statute for an instream flow appropriation, that is <br />inherent in the staff recommendation that's in the memorandum in <br />great detail, and I understand that to be a core part of this motion. <br /> <br />Ray Wright: <br /> <br />It is. <br /> <br />Janice: <br /> <br />If there is no further discussion, all those in favor? <br /> <br />All: <br /> <br />Aye. <br /> <br />Janice: <br /> <br />Opposed? <br /> <br />Ray Wright: <br /> <br />Then secondly, that we would, I would make a motion that AG's <br />office enter into the proposed stipulation with the Forest Service <br />regarding their forbearance in pursuing their own application on <br />their East Middle Creek filing at this time. <br /> <br />Alan: <br /> <br />Second. <br /> <br />Janice: <br /> <br />Further discussion? AU those in favor? <br /> <br />All: <br /> <br />Aye. <br /> <br />Janice: <br /> <br />Opposed? <br /> <br />Jennifer: <br /> <br />Okay, the last executive session item was regarding the <br />Hines/Highlands case that Dan briefed the Board on yesterday, this <br />is in respect to the findings, or the conclusions made by the court, <br />that a 25 year contract was not sufficient, and that you had to have <br />a signed executed contract in order to have a justifiable <br />augmentation plan. The Board discussed the policy implications <br />with this, in their concerns with respect to the use of Green <br />Mountain and Reudi to assist in development on the West Slope, <br />and I believe there is a motion for reconsideration being put <br />together by the State Engineer and other parties in that case, and <br /> <br />5" <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.