Laserfiche WebLink
Colorado River Recovery Implementation Program-- <br />. Water acquisition for the endangered fishes <br />Group Memory, February 28, 1992 <br />Reference Question #6: <br />"What latitude does board have to address..... " <br />Eliminate Oestion #7 and 8 -with understanding that #8 is subsumed in #5 above. <br />Element #2 <br />Page 6 <br />Oestion #6--(RE: compact issuesLge 12 -Put this question first and re-draft. "Is the <br />potential.... fish an impediment? "How can.... "C" through F" <br />List questions #1 - 4 as under the above question and add "A" and "B". <br />A. Can Colorado Identify, in timely manner, its compact apportionment delivery <br />and/or requirements on a stream-by-stream basis? <br />B. If timely I.D, of compact allocations not possible, what instream flow protection <br />is possible? <br />• List question #5 as part of B - (B) (1)• <br />Page 12 questions reference competing beneficial uses. <br />Question #1: Next to last line: Delate "Appropriation", substitute "protection". <br />Question #2: Re-Draft to: <br />Do the differences in the legal criteria and process between instream and non-instream water <br />rights give a higher value to the latter and is this an impediment? <br />These Differences Include CWCB Policy RE: <br />* Conditional rights <br />* Inundation <br />* De Minimis injury settlement <br />* 60-day notice requirement for instream rights <br />• Statutory Differences: <br />