My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Misc documents inside sleeve
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
8001-9000
>
Misc documents inside sleeve
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/11/2015 10:39:14 AM
Creation date
11/11/2015 10:39:12 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
Description
related to RICD Rulemaking 2001
State
CO
Date
11/8/2001
Author
CWCB
Title
CWCB RICD Rulemaking 2001
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Board Memo
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
28
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
Prichard, Vince <br /> From: Kowalski, Ted <br /> Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 10:10 AM <br /> To: Prichard, Vince <br /> Subject: FW: "consiederations" <br /> Original Message <br /> From: Lee Miller[mailto:LMILLER @fwlaw.com] <br /> Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 8:37 AM <br /> To: CFC @Alpersteincovell.com; dbaumgarten @co.gunnison.co.us; <br /> qqwater@colorado.net;jmcconaughy @crwcd.org; lawgreen @earthlink.net; <br /> Dan.Merriman @exchdwr.state.co.us; Sasha.Charney @exchdwr.state.co.us; <br /> Ted.Kowalski@exchdwr.state.co.us; acastle @hollandhart.com; <br /> cthorne@ hollandhart.com; Ikukowski @hollandhart.com; dch @lklawfirm.com; <br /> jhoupt @sopris.net;felicity.hannay @state.co.us; linda.bassi @state.co.us; <br /> susan.schneider @state.co.us; mpifher @troutlaw.com <br /> Cc: Stephen Leonhardt; arveschoug @home.com <br /> Subject: RE: "consiederations" <br /> All: <br /> I have concerns regarding the proposed (e) relating to "maximum utilization." I don't think the two factors "waste" and <br /> "economic benefit" adequately provide full consideration of the maximum utilization or optimal use doctrine. I recommend <br /> that the economic benefit factor be included into the staff draft, and that the staff draft delete "iv.", regarding reasonable <br /> demand for the rec activity. <br /> To the extent that Q/Q coalition intends to push forward with (e) with its two-prong considerations, I recommend that"i." be <br /> revised as follows: <br /> "The likelihood that the flow amount and timing requested for the RICD will result in waste." <br /> If you would like to discuss this further, please contact me by reply e-mail or at the number below. <br /> Thanks, Lee <br /> Lee E. Miller <br /> Fairfield and Woods, P.C. <br /> 1700 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 <br /> Denver, Colorado 80203-4524 <br /> http://www.fwlaw.com/ <br /> Phone: (303) 830-2400 <br /> Fax: (303) 830-1033 <br /> (miller @fwlaw.com <br /> Providing legal and legislative guidance <br /> to the western natural resource user community <br /> >>> "Kowalski,Ted" <Ted.Kowalski @exchdwr.state.co.us> 11/08/01 08:05AM >>> <br /> Thanks Barbara. <br /> Here is a slighly revised version of our memorandum. <br /> Original Message <br /> From: Barbara Green [mailto:lawgreen @earthlink.net] <br /> Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 7:38 AM <br /> To: Kowalski,Ted; Bassi, Linda; Merriman, Dan; Hannay, Felicity; <br /> Schneider, Susan; dbaumgarten @co.gunnison.co.us; <br /> cthorne @hollandhart.com; Ikukowski @hollandhart.com; (miller @fwlaw.com; <br /> jmcconaughy @crwcd.org; qqwater@colorado.net; mpifher @troutlaw.com; <br /> 1 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.