My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CWCB Concerning the Application for Water Rights of Upper Gunnsion River Water Conservancy District Transcript
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
2001-3000
>
CWCB Concerning the Application for Water Rights of Upper Gunnsion River Water Conservancy District Transcript
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 4:41:36 PM
Creation date
7/28/2009 2:38:04 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8230.2A5
Description
Staff Recommendations, Board Memo
State
CO
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
4
Date
9/10/2002
Author
CWCB, Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District
Title
CWCB Concerning the Application for Water Rights of Upper Gunnsion River Water Conservancy District Transcript
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Meeting
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
221
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
Harold Niiskel: OK. So that you're relying primarily on Mr. Lacy's opiaion, is tbat <br />right? <br />Jobn DeVore: . That's correct. <br />Harold MiskeL• Tbank you. <br />Don Schwindt: Wha.t about some from Ray? <br />Ray Wright: Mr. DeVore, it occuned ta me that the far tank through the suhject <br />reach had been the subject of some pretty aggressive work to gabflize that bank from erosion, both on pubfic and private property. <br />Could you descnbe the sff-orts that have been necessary in order ta <br />maintain fhat bank? <br />3ohn DeVore: In areas ia times of hard flows, rt has been difficult to stabilize that. <br />I can't speak to the private property owaers, but the County has <br />spent in the past time and resources adding to the rock work to try to <br />• keep that area fromi eroding. And that was one of the other intigues <br />with tlie whitewateT pazk of a building ztructure that would actually <br />divert the water away from that because we do get a lot of scourin.g <br />in that area during high flows. <br />Don Schwindt: I had a questiotL from Bob. , <br />Bob Burr: I just was wondering, is the appraisal on tl?at property considered as <br />paYt of the whitewater course or is it because it was a stream or how <br />. was that aPPraised? <br />3ohn DeVore: it was appraised as to its lughest andbest use, so it was a standard <br />appraM methodology that was used #o appraise that pazceL <br />Bob Burr: I see. But it was considered it would be part of the whitevvater <br />. course [unintellipble] . <br />Jobn DeVore; The appraisal does discuss it. There's a whitewater course that is <br />gaing ta be built but it discusses its highest and best tise aiid as a <br />fisherl'- <br />Don Schwindt: . Cyntbia, we3re you going to pomt aut the area of that pazcel or is that <br />Gynthia Covell:. Yeah, I jumped up just as you asked the very question. Maybe you <br />could point out on that map where the'area is ar would ft be easier to <br />have Crauy do that? . . <br />Colorado Water Conservation Board <br />September 10, 2002 Hearing Transcript <br />Page 24
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.