Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />Agenda Item 13 j <br />July 26-27, 1999 Board Meeting <br />Page 5 of5 <br /> <br />21. Central Arizona Project Association <br /> <br />No need for further surplus criteria. <br />Do not change Long-Range Criteria, <br />AOP process is adequate for distributing <br />flood control surpluses. <br /> <br />22. Lake Havasu City <br /> <br />Support surplus criteria that recognize <br />Arizona's lower priority during shortage and <br />that would allow no draw down of Mead to <br />support California demands if that increases <br />shortage risks to Arizona supplies, <br /> <br />23. City of Farmington <br /> <br />Any further surpluslshortage criteria adopted <br />are contingent on California's adherence to <br />its 4.4 plan. . <br />Must not jeopardize Upper Basin supplies in <br />any manner. <br /> <br />24. Dr. Larry J. Paulson <br /> <br />Concerns include Upper Colorado River <br />Basin State depletions, Lake Mead <br />evaporation, contaminated groundwater <br />return flow credits, and fIrst priority for <br />M&! users to any surpluses. <br /> <br />25. Thomas C. Havens <br /> <br />Current direction will not be productive, <br />wants to be involved. <br /> <br />26. US Filter Corporation (lID landowner) <br /> <br />Concerned that any surpluslshortage criteria <br />do not impact present perfected rights. <br />Reclamation should develop water <br />mangement regulations for Lower Basin that <br />include water markets. <br /> <br />27. Upper Colorado River Commission <br /> <br />Commepts attached. <br /> <br />28. State of Colorado <br /> <br />Comments attached <br /> <br />29. Colorado'River Water Conservation District <br /> <br />Comments attached <br />