My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD01180
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
1001-2000
>
BOARD01180
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 2:58:55 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 6:51:24 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
11/20/2000
Description
ISF Section - Regional Flow Discussion of Next Steps
Board Meetings - Doc Type
Memo
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
28
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />Vndiverted Recreational Instream Flows <br />1. Leave the statute alone. <br />+ No legislative ehange would be required. <br />- There would be no legal proteetion ofURlSFs. <br />- Federal agencies eould possibly attempt to use federal reserved or appropriative water rights to proteet <br />flows. <br />+/-See solutions, issues, and coneerns, as stated above. <br />+ Using operational agreements among parties may be a more effective way of protecting boating flows. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />2. Hold additional state meetings to further develop an appropriate approach to URlSFs. <br />+ Allows additional input and diseussion on this far-reaehing issue. <br />+ May eneourage the federal agencies to work within the existing system instead of filing for reserved or <br />appropriative water rights. <br /> <br />3. Expand the statutes and case law to include the ability to adjudicate RlSFs. <br />- Exaeerbates the problems noted above and raises the concerns expressed in the doeuments that have <br />previously been considered b the CWCB on this subjeet <br />- Would require the development of more limiting criteria for sueh water rights. This raises the question <br />of what entity would develop that eriteria and what would be the basis for that eriteria. <br />- Would further jeopardize the stale's ability 10 fully develop and utilize its eompaet entitlements. <br /> <br />4. Refer the issue to the General Assembly to investigate. <br />+/-CWCB loses eontrol over this eontroversial issue. <br />+ May take eare of the issue as it relates to federal ageneies. <br />- State legislation may be overridden by federal legislation. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Conclusion <br /> <br />Perhaps the only eonsensus that formed at the workshop was that the issue of RISFs is an extremely <br />eontentious and important issue. The Staffhas set aside one hour to diseuss this matter on the morning of <br />the first day of the Board meeting. Moreover, the Staff has arranged for the Board members to see the <br />Golden kayak eourse on the afternoon of the seeond day of the Board meeting. The Stafflooks to the <br />Board for further direetion on how the Board would like to proeeed. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Flood Protection. Water Project Planning and Financing. Stream and Lake Protection <br />Water Supply Protection. Conservation Planning <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.