WSP10892 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

J encsok: Martineau: Duncan: J encsok: e e appropriation 581 but we are not necessarily saying that's all that we would ever appropriate on evidence that might be provided to us in the future. So I'm really delighted that John has raised this issue expressly so we can address it but I flat out disagree with him. I would like to add that when the Board reviews and discussed the Fish and Wildlife recommendation my recollection is that the Board agreed the technical and biological studies supported a flow recommendation of, I believe, 700 to 1,200 cfs and that this was exactly a first step in meeting those goals that the Service would like to see met and so I agree with that in that this the first in an appropriation and ultimately we would like to see the full Fish and Wildlife Service recommendations being met in some manner whether that would be to a second appropriation or some other means, you know, we don't know at this time. Sara Gene does the 581 cfs equate to--in June-July or in July, August, and September, does it equate to 10,000 acre feet? No it does not but based on some simplifying assumptions on the river operations in the Colorado River we felt that based on those simplifying assumptions we would avoid a whole lot of legal, policy and technical issues in respect to compact obligations, conditional water rights and so on. This simply was a first step in determining how much water might be available and that is why we took the staff. We found that once we had the full recommendations from the Service for the full year then we would most likely revisit this issue, we have a more comprehensive analysis on water availability, compact apportionment issues and a number of other very complicated issues that we felt we could not resolve in a short term. So 12