Laserfiche WebLink
<br />July 13-14, 1998 Board Meeting <br />Agenda Item 26k <br />Page 6 of8 <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />... <br /> <br />for 10,825 AF from west slope facilities. It makes sense to proportionately reduce this . <br />second 10,825 AF as other non-Ruedi sources of water are made available to meet the RPA <br />requirement in the Progranunatic Biological Opinion, Otherwise, the Recovery Program <br />has the full 21,650 AF from Ruedi under this proposed agreementlRuedi Biological <br />Opinion (the first 10,825 AF and the second 10,825 AF) at the same time water users are <br />providing an additional I 0,825 AF from other non-Ruedi sources. The Bureau and the <br />Service may want to separate this Ruedi AgreementlBiological Opinion from the <br />Programmatic Biological Opinion. However, this Ruedi Biological Opinion should not <br />commit more water than is being established as an RP A in the Programmatic Biological <br />Opinion. This should be clarified. It is our understanding that no more than 21,650 AF <br />in total is to be made available under these two RP A provisions. <br /> <br />Even if all the issues above were addressed, the provision of Ruedi water for the benefit of the <br />endangered fish will remain contentious as water providers, both flat water and stream <br />recreationists, and others continue to press for positions most favorable to .their interests. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br />