My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Rules Hearing in Montrose Minutes
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
3001-4000
>
Rules Hearing in Montrose Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/14/2010 1:10:57 PM
Creation date
6/14/2010 9:37:24 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
Description
RICD Meetings Notes and Comments
State
CO
Basin
Gunnison
Water Division
4
Date
7/23/2001
Author
CWCB
Title
Rules Hearing in Montrose Minutes
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
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
Smith: need not address every one of them, some may not even apply. Informatino they may <br />provide. Soemthing about section 5 of rules. <br />Chris: the way sb crafted, you want to develop a cooperative process with applicant. As I read <br />the bill, believe black letter, only requriement shall submit copy of application. <br />RK: run risk of first 5 factors being recommended against you. <br />Chris: don't have language today but happy to work with you to develop language that <br />encourages cooperation. <br />RK: should be a request for further information. <br />Chris: board has a role in providing to applicant what you will consider and applicant to know <br />that. Again our concern is with tone and some of scope of what asking applicant to submit. <br />Frankly a lot of informaiton this board could access more than <br />Hoskin: suggestion by legislators intended to address right to float issue? <br />Chris: ask sponsor of bill. <br />Hoskin: did legislature address this in the fashion that can't float w/o permission of underlying <br />land owner <br />Entz: can't remember exactly. Need to own intermediate. <br />Hoskin: Is this establishing the rule? Gunnison <br />Entz: Golden own right of way through there. Don't know about rest of leg, but what erik <br />speaking of earlier. <br />Hoskin: If take Eric's interpretation, would mean don't have right to float. <br />EW: when we had a hearing in front of leg, CWCB had first hearing. October 30 of 2000. One of <br />the issues raised during investigation of all factors enter into operation/admin of rec inchannel <br />diversion. Not sure if in legislation. Foundation of my thinking and questions to chris. <br />Felicity: leg language is not sufficiently detailed to indicate any intention in regard to right to <br />float. Say that person has to demonstrate whether or not there is access. Could be person comes <br />in and may not have but could establish. Lake fork of the Gunnison, only on trespass and <br />particular issues, will go up but not for a while. Didn't attend hearings but would have heard <br />about it b/c I've been person for last 2 %2 years except that some people worried but others said <br />not relation to right to float. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.