Laserfiche WebLink
<br />t", <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Jim Lochhead: <br /> <br />(off-mike comments) <br /> <br />David Harrison: <br /> <br />Jim Lochhead: <br /> <br />Eric Kuhn: <br /> <br />David Harrison: <br /> <br />Eric Kuhn: <br /> <br />David Harrison: <br /> <br />David Meyring: <br /> <br />David Harrison: <br /> <br />have an application pending for 581. The filing would be for the <br />differences between the base flow now...those amounts shown here and <br />what we also ultimately get on our decree in 581 case. (92CW286) <br /> <br />In other words, this is not stacking this group on top. <br /> <br />The point is, you've got to be consistent in how you describe that. You <br />describe 581 plus an increment of 300 and whatever, those two do stack, <br />but not to exceed a total of 810. Or you could describe 810 and provide <br />that it doesn't stack on top of 581. You could go either direction on that. <br />And Wendy's gone a certain direction in the draft application. Looks like <br />it works to me. <br /> <br />And the modification is up to 400,000 acre feet, not by an additional <br />400,000 acre feet. <br /> <br />Yes, up to a total of 400,000 (interference noise) initial the carveout is <br />100,000. The carveout will be modified up to a total of 400,000. <br /> <br />Is there anything else to be... <br /> <br />The motion will have the same provision with respect to future changes in <br />river hydrology. <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 fmdings? <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 400,000 acre feet when one of the possibilities is that compact <br />development might be more than that, and it might want to all happen on <br />the Colorado. I'm prepared to go along with it here, though, in view of <br />what we call the safety valve language that Hal suggested earlier this <br />morning, that if the only amount of water available to us is the 3.855, then <br />400,000 on the <::olorado will work out, that leaves something like 350(?) <br />everywhere else. I think it could be that there is more compact <br />development on the mainstem than that, but it would fall under this <br />language that there's more than 3.855 compact. So I think...! just want to <br />be sure I understand that. <br /> <br />Minutes of December 13, 1995 Special eWeB Meeting <br />