My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSPC183
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
20000-20849
>
WSPC183
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 4:16:02 PM
Creation date
4/22/2007 10:30:07 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8200.766
Description
Colorado River Basin - Gunnison River General Publications-Correspondence-Reports
State
CO
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
5
Date
7/23/2001
Author
Unknown
Title
Meetings-Conference Calls 2001-2002 - RE-Colorado River Basin - Gunnison River - Aspinall-Management-Biology Committees-Etc - Reviewed-Drafts - 07-23-01 through 09-06-02
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Agenda
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
45
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 />( <br /> <br />.' , <br /> <br />Miskel: <br /> <br />Wa1cher: <br /> <br />Miskel: <br /> <br />Wright: <br /> <br />Miskel: <br /> <br />Seaholm: <br /> <br />Wright: <br /> <br />Seaholm: <br /> <br />Wright: <br /> <br />Seaholm: <br /> <br />Miskel: <br /> <br />002458 <br /> <br />I guess I didn't read that into that at all, but... <br /> <br />Nor did the three Congressmen, I'm just saying that there's some people <br />who will, so we want to be careful. <br /> <br />I guess I can't worry about the paranoia of a lot of other people. , .I agree <br />with you completely, the message we need to be sending here is 1) this <br />300,000 acre feet has been set aside for use in Colorado; 2) it's the State of <br />Colorado, this Board, and the water users in Colorado that will decide <br />where and how that water gets used, not the Federal Government. That's <br />really, to me, what the message ought to be if we write a letter of any kind. <br />Does anybody have any disagreement with that? Is that kind of what you <br />said? Ray? <br /> <br />I'm surprised that the Bureau thinks its going to take another full year for <br />modeling, I was curious how CDSS was being used in the evaluations, <br />And what the status of the Bureau!'s modeling tools are right now, and <br />whether or not we have any agreement on the science of the evaluation, <br />the impacts of these three operations, <br /> <br />Anybody can respond to that? <br /> <br />(off-mike and hard to hear) I'll give it a try, I don't like to speak for the <br />Bureau.. .basically, where the Bureau of Reclamation is, is that they have <br />put together the modeling to do the work in house. They certainly ca..'} use <br />the Colorado Decision Support System, its up and running and we'd <br />provide that data for the monthly measure, which then they can take in the <br />daily operations, mainly of their power users, We had some conversations <br />with some western area power transpiration, they'd be more than willing <br />to work with us in our monthly modeling and their daily modeling power <br />operation, and we can really almost certainly.. ,(?).,. too late for <br />Reclamation to do the job, but we can.. ..but we are in position to use our <br />DSS now. <br /> <br />Does our DSS model the reservoir operations? <br /> <br />Yes it does. <br /> <br />But it doesn't account for power, then, I'm assuming, or.., <br /> <br />Well, it accounts for power, but it does so on a monthly basis, and in order <br />for western to see what the impacts are they want to take the monthly <br />volume and run it through their daily modeling. And that's <br />something., ,(?, .unclear).,.. <br /> <br />Yes, Rod? <br /> <br />3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.