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 />J encsok: <br /> <br />Jackson: <br /> <br />David ?: <br /> <br />Jencsok: <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Maybe I can add a couple of more comments so you really understand. <br />The service recommendation was for 700 to 1,200 cfs for the July-August <br />period. This so the 581 is only part of that recommendation, another part <br />of the flow that will accrue to the 15 Mile Reach is the first 10,000 acre <br />feet out of Ruedi Reservoir and if there are any other agreements on <br />Ruedi Reservoir those will also be part of that habitat improvement, <br />recovery effort on the 15 Mile Reach so we are not done with the 15 Mile <br />Reach by a long shot. I think Sue will talk about flow recommendations <br />for the rest of the year and also we need to consider that an appropriation <br />by itself, will not necessarily guarantee the water, that it will be there all <br />the time but it will be its priority so the 15 Mile Reach will be revisited on <br />many occasions in the next few years. <br /> <br />David, did, if I understood Gene's, he wants the 581 and secondly to work <br />with the Service on a MOD and--but thirdly, no linkage on issues of <br />sufficient progress. Do those three things run sightly counter to what you <br />said. <br /> <br />Perhaps but I don't know we need to make a big deal of it, all I want to <br />say is, authority to negotiate on the enforceability agreement is not <br />authority to sign it and presumably that will come back to us and we will <br />deal with in the context of the total situation at that time. So I don't want <br />to put stress on linkage, I just want to make clear we're not predetermining <br />our outcome on the enforceability agreement. <br /> <br />I think that's the intent of the staff, that we not have a real ridged linkage <br />between the two issues but that we have some flexibility to work with the <br />Service and we have the water users and then bring back to you whatever <br />the decision we reach on sufficient progress, the MOD not provide a real <br />ridged linkage that would set up situation. <br /> <br />7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.