Laserfiche WebLink
<br />, <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br /> <br />6. <br /> <br />Should the Criteria address compact development issues only or should ey <br />include endangered fish recovery factors as well? Staff recommends that both <br />compact and endangered fish recovery factors be considered when making <br />modifications. <br />Are the two provisions contained in the proposed decree enough? Staff recommends <br />that for filing purposes the two criteria outlined in the proposed application are enough <br />although further definition t1U1Y be considered during water court proceedings. <br />What process should the CWCB follow in considering modification requests? The <br />process that the Board should follow when considering future modifications of the <br />Recovery Flow Water Right needs further discussion and should be considered an <br />administrative matter to be negotiated during water court proceedings. /J tJ <br />Should the CWCB propose to take all modifications back to water court or ask the L- V <br />court to approve an administrative process which does not require court approval? ~ <br />Staff believes we should propose an administrative process and that this process should <br />be negotiaJed during waJer court proceedings. <br />Filinl!: Dates: <br />Should the Board file in December 1995 or wait until more of the issues described <br />above are resolved? There is clear consensus that the Board shouldfile water right <br />applicaJions in December, 1995 and staff recommends making the filings within this time <br />frame. <br />Delaved Enforcement Provisions: <br />Can a delayed enforcement provision be included for the Base Flow to avoid <br />complications with small depletions and potential selective subordination issues <br />until appropriate augmentation can be established? There appears to be consensus <br />that this is not necessary since the Division Engineer will not begin administration of <br />these rights until they are decreed and thus there shoulil be plenty of time to arrange for <br />augmentation sources. <br />Can delayed enforcement provisions be included in the Recovery Flow to allow the <br />Carve Outs to fully develop? We believe so, staff understands that the mechanism <br />requires further discussion and we recommend that terms and conditions be negotiated <br />during waJer court proceedings. <br />Bvuass Flows: <br />Is the language in the proposed application adequate to protect against the <br />unintended use of the Base Flow and Recovery Flow rights by federal pennitting <br />agencies as the basis for requiring "bypass flows"? Staff recommends the <br />incorporation of language agreed to in the 92CW286 case when it is final to address <br />this issue. <br />Periodic Review Provision: <br />Should the CWCB ask the court for a retained jurisdiction provision to assure <br />correlation between appropriated flows, development and fishery research? The <br />Board has indicated a willingness to review the need for modification of these rights <br />whenever there appears to be justification for doing so. There appears to be consensus <br />on this and thus there is no need to address it in the applicaJion. There is no apparent <br />interest in a periodic judicial review, although this issue may be raised during water <br />court proceedings. <br /> <br />7. <br /> <br />8. <br /> <br />9. <br /> <br />3 <br />