My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP01478
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
1001-2000
>
WSP01478
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/8/2010 11:54:13 AM
Creation date
10/11/2006 10:27:42 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8240.200.40.H
Description
Yampa
State
CO
Basin
Yampa/White
Water Division
6
Date
12/13/1995
Title
Instream Flow Filings for Endangered Fish in the Yampa - Special Meeting
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Board Memo
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
70
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 />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />.. <br /> <br />3. <br /> <br />Carve Ont: <br />Are the amounts acceptable? Staff recommends an annual Carve Out of 100,000 acre <br />feet be providedfor. Water users would prefer a 200,000 acre foot carve out. Staff is <br />recommending only the 100,000 acre foot carve out with the clear understanding that <br />there are issues to be addressed with respect to how the Carve Out is accounted for and <br />the clear understanding that it can be adjusted up or down during water coun <br />proceedings since it is not pan of the water right appropriation. <br />Should the monthly distribution be defined before or after fIling? Staff recommends <br />that the monthly distribution of the Carve Out be defined after filing. The monthly <br />distribution of the Carve Out should be negotiated during water coun proceedings as a <br />number of interests want to consulted on this matter. Water users have indicated that <br />while a Carve Out concept is acceptable, they do not favor a monthly distribution of it. <br />We plan to review this issue at the December 13, 1995 meeting. <br />Are Senior and Junior water rights counted against the Carve Out or only juniors? <br />Juniors and seniors both should be counted against the Carve Out and there appears to <br />be consens,us on this issue if can agree on the current level of depletions from which we <br />stan counting against the Carve Out. Staff believes this is an administrative issue tluit <br />can be worked out during water coun proceedings. <br />How should the Carve Out accounting be done? Staff recommends that <br />administrative issues be negotiated during water court proceedings. <br />Modifiable Portion of the Recovery Flow Water Ril!ht: <br />Can the CWCB assure its intent that a portion of the Recovery Flow Water Right is <br />modifiable through language in the decree or by legislation which amends the state <br />instream flow statute? The AG's Office advises us that decree language can work, but <br />legislative clarification is also being pursued. Staff believes we can successfully deal <br />with this issue in either way at this time, and thus we dO not need to solve this issue prior <br />to filing. <br />Is the amount acceptable? The staff recommends a 300,000 acre foot modifiable <br />panionon an annual basis in addition to the 100,000 acre foot Carve Out. Staff <br />recommends including the 300,000 acre foot modifiable pan/on in the recovery flow <br />water right application. The water users would prefer a 200,000 acre foot modifiable <br />pamon and a 200,000 acre foot Carve Out. Staff prefers the 100,0001300,000 acre foot <br />values for noticing purposes in the application with the understanding that these values <br />could be modified during water coun proceedings as necessary. <br />Should the monthly distribution be defined before or after filing? Staff recommends <br />that the monthly distribution of the modifiable ponion of the recovery right be defined <br />after filing. The monthly distribution of the modifiable pan/on should be negotiated <br />during water coun proceedings as a number of interests want to consulted on this <br />matter. Water users have indicated that the concept of making a ponion of the recovery <br />right modifiable is acceptable, but, they do not favor a monthly distribution of it. We <br />plan to review our latest thinking on the matter at our December 13, 1995 meeting. <br />Criteria for Modifvine: the Recovery Flow Water Ril!ht: <br />Should the modifications be automatic? Staff recommends that modifications not be <br />automatic and both water users and environmental interests appear to agree on this <br />issue. <br /> <br />4. <br /> <br />5. <br /> <br />2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.