Laserfiche WebLink
<br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />David Harrison: <br /> <br />David Meyring: <br /> <br />David Harrison: <br /> <br />Eric Kuhn: <br /> <br />Wendy Weisse?) <br /> <br />David Harrison: <br /> <br />Wendy Weiss: <br /> <br />David Harrison: <br /> <br />Jim Lochhead: <br /> <br />David Harrison: <br /> <br />Grady McNeil: <br /> <br />Is the motion clear enough, then..do we have all the parts of it. <br /> <br />Have we mentioned having made all the appropriate findings? <br /> <br />Not yet...the findings are here, we'll get into it in a second. There is a <br />second to the motion, Patti? Are there any further clarifications to the <br />motion to be made before we can actually discuss it? OK, I want to just <br />say that I have been very nervous about having the modifiable amount as <br />low as 400 when one of the possibilities is that compact development <br />might be more than that, and it might want to all happen on the Colorado. <br />I'm prepared to go along with it here, though, in view of what we call the <br />safety valve language that Hal suggested earlier this morning, that if the <br />only amount of water available to us is the 3.855, then 400 on the <br />Colorado will work out, that leaves something like 350(?) everywhere else. <br />I think it could be that there is more compact development on the <br />mainstem than that, but it would fall under this language that there's more <br />than 3.855 compact. So I think...! just want to be sure I understand that. <br /> <br />Well, I think that the other thing would be that in the negotiations that we <br />say up to 400, we could increase that to a greater amount, we would be <br />decreasing a right, correct, we would not have to... <br /> <br />(faint) The one thing I think you may want to amplify, this should be ir <br />relation to both filings...! hate to even suggest this issue at this hour...is <br />whether the State of Colorado made that determination, such modification <br />to be made pursuant to paragraph 4, _??_ we decided we would or <br />wvdd not be part of the _??_' <br /> <br />I think we'll have a contract issue with the Service at that time. We will <br />determine how much compact water is available. If they flat out disagree <br />with us, we'll probably have to fight them under the enforcement <br />agreement. <br /> <br />OK. <br /> <br />Its not a very satisfactory end point, but that's the reality, isn't it? All <br />right, other questions on the motion? Are there any questions or comments <br />from the public? Jim, do you want to inquire of the Division of Wildlife? <br /> <br />Certainly. <br /> <br />Grady? <br /> <br />Mr. Chairman, Rick Anderson, the researcher working on the Colorado <br />River, in the fifteen mile reach, (inaudible) will give our Wildlife <br />