My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
25b (2)
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
DayForward
>
1-1000
>
25b (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 2:37:42 PM
Creation date
12/4/2007 11:07:24 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
11/18/2007
Description
IBCC Director's Report
Board Meetings - Doc Type
Memo
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
24
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
Ray Wright: Still a struggle for communities to survive. Needs to be a fundamental shift and <br />recognition everyone can live through this. <br />Wayne T~anderschuer•e: Is CWCB going to have a similar conversation? <br />RickBr•own: We have. Embarking on this path is what the CWCB wants to do. <br />Jim Isgar° We need to move forward! How we develop water we are entitled to is an <br />appropriate discussion. <br />Colorado River Availability Study <br />Eric Hecox reviewed the process and status that was used to develop the current scope of work <br />for Colorado River Water Availability. Comments on the document fell into three categories. <br />(1) Need to have sufficient time in the implementation of the study to ensure roundtable <br />feedback (scope was adjusted for time and additional workshops were added). (2) Substantive <br />comments relate to Phase 2. (3) Got a few for Phase 1 comments which were incorporated and <br />did not change scope of work. State is ready to procure. <br />The IBCC took 10 minutes to review the comments on the Supply Availability Study. <br />COMMENTS: <br />Melinda Kassen: Will the Colorado River Supply Availability and SEO Compact Study be <br />brought together? <br />Randy Seaholm: They will be parallel processes. CWCB has asked for $500,000 for a Colorado <br />Compact Curtailment Project. <br />Melinda Kassen: On non water rights -Would Phase 1 produce a scenario where new species <br />would be lost based on the use of the water? <br />Ray Alvarado: We will not be looking at that as part of Phase 1. <br />Eric Hecox: Task 4 will be used to determine is we are doing it appropriately. <br />Dan Birch: River District Board urged using a great deal of caution for a Colorado Companct <br />Curtailment Study. There is a doubt on how much Colorado is entitled to under the compact. <br />Randy Seaholm: Do not have a delivery obligation, only obligation to curtail if delivery runs <br />below 7.5 million aa.ft. 10-yearing average is close to 8.5 9 million aa.ft. Do not want to <br />delay getting started on it. <br />Jim Isgar: When you look at what is available, are you looking at pre-compact? <br />Randy Seaholm: Can look at pre-compact. Are we held to 1922 or 1929 date? <br />Colorado Water Conservation Board <br />Flood Protection • Water Project Planning and Finance • Stream and Lake Protection <br />Water Supply Protection • Conservation and Drought Planning • Intrastate Water Planning <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.