Laserfiche WebLink
<br />.: <br />. <br /> <br />March 19,1999 <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Memorandum <br /> <br />TO: Dan Merriman <br />Mark Uppendahl <br /> <br />FROM: Edward R. Kowalski <br /> <br />.....--;.. - -, <br />!,CC\ <br /> <br />RE: CWCB Instream Flow Applications in Grand County, Case Nos. 90CW302, <br />90CW308, 90CW310, 90CW311, 90CW312, 90CW315, 90CW316, & 90CW317 <br /> <br />As you know, the Colorado Water Conservation Board (the "CWCB") filed forty-one <br />applications for instream flow appropriations for streams and rivers located in Grand County, <br />Colorado in 1990_ The above-referenced cases are the only cases that we have not finalized. <br />With the exception of Case No. 90CW308, Denver is the only remaining objector in these <br />cases. At the last status conference before Referee Cutter, he requested that we submit <br />proposed rulings for his signature by March 31, 1999, Referee Cutter indicated that these are A <br />old cases, and that he would like to sign off on proposed decrees. Referee Cutter also . <br />suggested that Denver can protest the rulings if they deem it necessary. <br /> <br />As such, I have requested that the CWCB consider these cases on March 30, 1999. <br />Pursuant to Rule 5.60, the CWCB must apprOve the proposed decrees because some <br />segments are altered or some ofthe requested flows are reduced. It is our hope that Denver <br />will find that these proposed rulings adequately address their concerns. Nevertheless, if the <br />CWCB approves these proposed decrees, then I will submit these rulings for the Referee's <br />signature pursuant to his request. Of course, we will continue to discuss settlement with <br />Denver and bring back any new proposals to the CWCB, if necessary. <br /> <br />Attachment <br /> <br />AG ALPHA: <br />AG FILE: <br /> <br />NR WCIAESF <br />P:INRINRKOW AERIGRNDFIN.MEM <br /> <br />e <br />