Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Attachment: Agenda Item No. 22 <br /> <br />.' <br /> <br />There are a few other minor points with regard to physical availability, In the COM study, the <br />assumption that there would be water available for augmentation from a IOOAJ dry up of <br />agricultural land is incorrect. Any water not used for irrigation by one senior right holder would <br />be used by the next senior rigbt in this chroraically under supplied area. Also)' the determination of <br />the flows in Coal particularly and somewhat in Anthracite was not accurately done. There is no <br />gauging station on either and measurements on the streams were not sufficient to confirm flow <br />amounts. <br /> <br />In summary, the NFWCD feeJs that it is still premature for the CWCB to make its ISF filing. <br />There are a number of still unresolved issues. There bas been progress working on these issues, <br />but more time and thought are needed, particularly to resolve the augmentation questions. There <br />needs to be some creative thinking to find a solution to the lack of available supply. If some sort <br />of "carve out" were possible to insure the ability to exchange water above the ISF reach this <br />might be a part of a solution. However, this carve out would need to allow for at least 300-400 af <br />to satisfY all the identified augmentation needs. Finally, as both the CDM and LRE reports <br />indicate, the best soJutionto problems in the upper N_F. basin would be new upstream reservoirs <br />to provide augmentation and supplemental irrigation. The NFWCD would be very interested in <br />pursuing this option and would welcome the CWCB's help. This sort ofpannership would be a <br />win-win program which might solve the identified problems in this area. <br /> <br />Sincerely, <br />Thomas M Alvey President NFWCD <br /> <br />.' <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />