Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Eric Kuhn: <br /> <br />Wellcly Weiss(?) <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 />Rick Anderson: <br /> <br />~ .., " <br /> <br />Well, I think that the other thing would be that in the negotiations that we <br />say up to 400,000 acre feet. If we increased that by greater amount, then <br />we would be decreasing the water right, correct? <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />(faint) The one thing I think you may want to amplify, this should be in <br />relation to both filings...! hate to even suggest this issue at this hour...is <br />whether if the State of Colorado made that determination, such <br />modification to be made pursuant to paragraph 3 or paragraph 4,we <br />decided we would or would not be part of the enforcement agreement. <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 />. <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 />Statement(?). <br /> <br />My name's Rick Anderson, I'm a aquatic researcher in Fort Collins, <br />working primarily on instream flow issues. In the memo to the Board <br />from the Water Conservation Board there's a statement that the fifteen <br />reach of the Colorado River is viewed by the Service as critical in <br />recovering Colorado populations of squawfish and razorback suckers, and <br />based on my review of the current data and literature, most of that has <br />been collected by the Fish and Wildlife Service in the context of squawfish <br />populations, life history aspects, and there's been quite a bit of extensive <br />sampling done over the last 10 years, but the Division of Wildlife concurs <br />that this reach of the river is critical for recovery, and that there is a <br />natural environment present, and that it can be preserved to a reasonable <br />degree with these water rights. Also listed in this memorandum are some <br />reports put out by the Fish and Wildlife Service of biologically defensible <br />flow recommendations stated in May 1989...recommendations for flows in <br />the fifteen mile reach from April 1991 and the most recent report, <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Minutes of December 13, 1995 Special eWeB Meeting <br />