My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
SWSI Environment and Recreation Needs and Priorities TRT Draft
CWCB
>
SWSI II Technical Roundtables
>
DayForward
>
SWSI Environment and Recreation Needs and Priorities TRT Draft
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/11/2009 10:30:04 AM
Creation date
12/21/2007 2:11:42 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
SWSI II Technical Roundtables
Technical Roundtable
Recreation & Environment
Title
SWSI - Environment and Recreation Needs and Priorities White Paper
SWSI II - Doc Type
White Papers
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
29
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 />questions for discussion have been categorized as institutional and political, technical, financial <br />and legal/water rights. This list is not intended to be comprehensive and TRT members will be <br />asked to expand upon these questions. <br /> <br />Institutional and Political <br /> <br />. Can incentives be developed for entities to donate their water rights for instream or <br />recreational uses? <br /> <br />. Should the CWCB Board have greater discretion in the protection of instream flows? <br /> <br />. Can an approach be developed and agreed upon between all water interests for setting goals <br />and prioritizing areas for protection? <br /> <br />. How can an acceptable balance be achieved between competition for the same sources of <br />water with existing uses such as agricultural and municipal and industrial? <br /> <br />. Can a prioritization scheme be developed where there is consideration of recreation and <br />environmental needs, M&I needs, and agricultural needs? <br /> <br />. Do instream flows need to be permanent and what are the legal ramifications? Should CWCB <br />be allowed to rescind ISF filings if they are found to impact other uses? Should someone be <br />able to do a temporary dedication with the right to pull back the water during a drought? <br /> <br />Technical <br /> <br />. What are a few most promising methods for calculating different instream flow regimes? Are <br />there locations where these methods could be modeled to determine adequacy for meeting <br />stated purposes and potential impacts on existing water rights and future water development <br />potential? <br /> <br />. What are the elements of a prioritization methodology? What are the associated geographic <br />tools to use? <br /> <br />. What are examples of projects that benefit multiple users that could serve as a model for the <br />state? <br /> <br />. Are there potential enhancements to existing instream flow programs that could be <br />developed? <br /> <br />. How can Conserve, Protect, Restore priorities be implemented and integrated into a <br />prioritization process and how might that process interface with the instream flow program? <br /> <br />Financial <br /> <br />. How can the CWCB Board's instream flow program be financed to provide for acquisition of <br />senior water rights? <br /> <br />~5\^ISI <br /> <br />S.lal~.....ide WeIer Supply Initiclive <br /> <br />DRAFT <br /> <br />CDIVI <br /> <br />C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\ROWANNC\DESKTOP\SWSI\RICKREDREC_ENV WHITE PAPER_1 Q-4-Q5.DOC <br /> <br />2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.