My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD02112
CWCB
>
Chatfield Mitigation
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
2001-3000
>
BOARD02112
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 3:12:15 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 7:11:00 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
1/9/1978
Description
Agenda, Minutes, Resolution
Board Meetings - Doc Type
Meeting
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
92
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 />we have been talking about it. .Walt, do you want to add something to <br />that? <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />MR. BURKHARD: I think all that I can add to. that is that because of <br />that stretch of the river, the terrain and the channel configuration, <br />and past flow histories of that river, if it is dropped below the <br />eighty it is going to materially affect the habitat for. the fishery and <br />we will lose some habitat. It is only. a mile and a half or a mile and <br />seven-tenths. The effects are not going to be felt throughout the <br />river. The. effects are going to be felt. in that one..stretch of the <br />mile and a half.. <br /> <br />MR. KROEGER: It is my understanding, then, that in spite of that loss, <br />the Division of Wildlife does support and goes on record as supporting <br />the 70 second-feet. <br /> <br />MR. BURKHARD: Yes. <br /> <br />MR. FETCHER: Mr. Chairman, I might point out as.a practical matter <br />that there. are. tributaries that add water to that stretch from Lost <br />Creek down to Marvine Creek, and that we are only really talking about <br />the 70 cfs at Lost Creek, and that there is additional water added as <br />a practical matter. <br /> <br />MR. KROEGER: Further comments from the board? Are you ready to vote? <br /> <br />(There being no further discussion, the motion was. put to a voice vote <br />and was carried without dissent.) <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />MR. SPARKS: Mr. Chairman, while we are on that page, I think we might <br />as well dispose of the issue that has been raised by Mr.. Ten Eyck at <br />this time. It is with reference to a reconnnended appropriation made by <br />this board at the last meeting. Apparently, the information that .we <br />sent out to Rio Blanco County either didn't get to them or was mislaid. <br />Our records show that we mailed it. There has been considerable <br />controversy about that appropriation on the White River below Meeker. <br />The way the appropriation was approved was 200 second-feet down to the <br />confluence of the White River and Piceance Creek, and from that point <br />on an appropriation of 250 second-feet. The concern of Rio Blanco <br />County is that there be sufficient water left in the White River to <br />serve the needs of that area in view of the potential energy develop- <br />ment. This is the subject which Mr. Ten Eyck addressed. <br /> <br />We have analyzed the flow of the White River over a period of time. <br />The annual discharge of the White River at the gauging station down- <br />. stream from Meeker was 460,000 acre-feet for our period of study. <br /> <br />-21- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.