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 />Martineau: <br /> <br />Harrison: <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />reached a compromise on that. The issues of sufficient progress now go far <br />beyond those like a new project such as Wolford Mountain or Two Forks. <br />They go in to existing project operations, giving an example where this may <br />apply in the next several years is the Grand Valley Water Users would like <br />to do some repair work, some--a lot of it is very cosmetic dealing with the <br />cement on the roller dam and some things like that. They have acquired <br />or they are considering applying to the United States for loans to do that <br />through the reclamation program. If that project is considered--if sufficient <br />progress has to apply to an existing project down there and the--you know, <br />there could be major problems, major reoperations, the effect would <br />probably force the group to deal with-- that issue for several years <br />until this has been resolved and I don't think we can do that, I don't think <br />we can live with that kind of uncertainty as to applies to existing projects <br />and with that I think I want to say that I agree with--l think the Board has <br />had good communication and good cooperation with the Water Congress <br />Special Project and we want to continue that relationship. I might also add <br />that as the River District we participate both in the recovery program as <br />the River District and as a member of the Water Congress so we kind of <br />have duel in that issue. Are there any questions? <br /> <br />Any other questions or comment. Okay I think we're ready for a motion <br /> <br />now. <br /> <br />Okay, I think we're ready for a motion now. <br /> <br />I would move that we determine first of all the following determinations <br />of fact pursuant to the statute 37-92-1023. <br />That a. a natural environment does exist in the IS-Mile Reach. <br />That b. water is available in the IS-Mile Reach for appropriation at least <br />to the extent of 581 cfs for July, August, and September. <br /> <br />15 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.