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 />Jackson: <br /> <br />It <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />want to make the point as a much larger context and let me say, kind of, <br />quickly to qualify the question I'm going to have next, I'm strongly in favor <br />of moving ahead on this, and 1 am in favor of sitting down and looking to <br />see if we can work an enforceability agreement, and MOD on this water <br />right. 1 assume it will need, at some point, to apply to other water rights. <br />1 am also very much interested in seeing us sit down and work on the <br />sufficient progress issue or more specifically to sit down and work on a <br />comprehensive recovery program issue that will obviate the need to keep <br />talking about sufficient progress and maybe we can have some specific <br />ideas as opposed to a generality called sufficient progress. I--so now my <br />comment is that 1 would very much favor our continuing to negotiate <br />toward an enforceability agreement but I'm not sure that we would be <br />ready to enter into an enforceability agreement outside the context of a <br />more broad reaching agreement that deals with the sufficient progress <br />question or hopefully obviates the sufficient progress question so 1 think <br />we've got to work on it and make as much progress as we can but 1 don't <br />think we're saying today that we're making a decision that we would enter <br />into in a enforceability agreement. Moreover, if we were 1 would have to <br />ask the legal question, what is the consideration for that agreement, 1 mean <br />when there is a donation of a water right then enforceability is usually <br />given in consideration for the donation but if we make an appropriation <br />and it's not connected to a broader program in some way then I wonder if <br />there is a consideration problem. So again I want to put the emphasis on <br />the first part of my remarks, I strongly support going forward on this and <br />see if we can't find a breakthrough on this whole business about sufficient <br />progress and that will entail enforceability agreement but I don't want--this <br />is not a car blanch on enforceability agreement is the way I see the action <br />today. <br /> <br />Other Board comment. Gene <br /> <br />6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.