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 />I <br /> <br />Kuharich: <br /> <br />Smith: <br /> <br />Miskel: <br /> <br />Kuharich: <br /> <br />Miskel: <br /> <br />Kuharich: <br /> <br />Walcher: <br /> <br />Miskel: <br /> <br />002459 <br /> <br />The Bureau won't complete their water demand projections until January, <br />so if there are any water demands that you feel are not included in these <br />projections, we have until that time to include them. Additionally, the <br />Board will be very involved in the Gunnison River issues, not only from <br />the reserved rights case but from the Preferred Biological Opinion, and I <br />think its probably incumbent upon us to ensure that this water is accounted <br />for as consumptive use under our compact. It's already in storage and we <br />need to.. .regardless of where its use is, we need to protect that water so <br />that it's available for use by the State, <br /> <br />I think that's the message that we want to send in our response. I'd be <br />more comfortable with that. <br /> <br />What I'm hearings is that you think it is appropriate for the Board to send <br />a letter...! presume it would go to the Bureau or to maybe" . Secretary <br />Norton? <br /> <br />Secretary Norton. It would say that the 300,000 acre feet that has been <br />identified is for use in Colorado, and its Colorado's decision as to how that <br />water will be used, Period. Just a very short letter, <br /> <br />OK, . .is the Board OK with that? <br /> <br />I think the issue here was that the Bureau, probably the hydrologists with <br />the Parks Service, was to make sure that this water got accounted for as <br />instream flow use, when in fact, that whole thing hadn't been settled yet. <br /> <br />I would suggest a letter be" .the last sentence be fairly specific in making <br />it clear that its up to Colorado to decide how to use that water, and where <br />to use that water, and when to use that water, and whether to use that <br />water. <br /> <br />How, when, where and whether. OK, Rod, are you still finishing the <br />Director's report? <br /> <br />End of Gunnison discussion. <br /> <br />2069 <br /> <br />October 1,2001 <br />SCM <br /> <br />4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.