My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP10892
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
10001-10999
>
WSP10892
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 3:15:06 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 4:35:28 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8282.200.10.D.2
Description
UCRBRIP
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Date
3/5/1992
Author
CWCB
Title
UCRBRIP Program Board Memos Item 15a 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.
/
17
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 />Martineau: <br /> <br />Jencsok: <br /> <br />Martineau: <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />this is simply a first step in making an appropriation. <br /> <br />Gene if I recall in the agreement between the Water Conservation Board <br />that Nature Conservancy with respect to the 300 cfs donation in the Black <br />Canyon the approach of the Board there was that it was at least 300 cfs <br />was what was needed in that minimum stream flow appropriation and <br />that's been the approach taken in the Black Canyon. Is there any <br />of that concept here, in this case? <br /> <br />Yes and no. Yes in that this a--it's not necessarily a minimum, we don't <br />know what a minimum is, I don't think the service provided us with a--well <br />they did in fact provide us with a minimum but it was more of a range and <br />as I recollect they provided us with a number of 600 cfs is that correct,-- <br />as the minimum that would be required in July, August and September but <br />based on their biological studies they recommended a flow window of 700 <br />to 1,200 I believe. 9 to 11 was the best recommended number and so in <br />some sense there is a minimum included in their report but this--the <br />implication is not that this is the minimum required to preserve the natural <br />environment to a reasonable degree. This is the amount that we found, <br />based on the studies we have done is available for the appropriation and <br />then we do more comprehensive studies and we have more, the full year <br />recommendations from the Service we will most likely revisit this period <br />and see if there's more water available on appropriation or do some other <br />things. <br /> <br />The 581 is based on the amount that can be checked back at the Orchard <br />Mesa Check, isn't--that's where is comes from. <br /> <br />Any other questions or comment, Eric <br /> <br />13 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.