My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP02257
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
2001-3000
>
WSP02257
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:35:40 PM
Creation date
10/11/2006 11:00:49 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8282.200.10.D.2
Description
UCRBRIP
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Date
1/1/1991
Author
CWCB
Title
UCRBRIP Program Board Memos Item 19 Transcription
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.
/
28
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 />e <br /> <br />have an issue with that and we think we should <br />proceed on that basis. To the extent the Board has <br />approved for use on the Yampa ____ <br />use July, August, September period the 15 mile reach <br />we don't have a problem proceeding through prior <br />flows on the basis that you've decided. Collectively <br />I think the water users support that you will have <br />individual water users give support. We <br />think you should proceed on that because it is a part <br />of the agreement that was made under the recovery <br />program. water availability study on the <br />Yampa river we think you need that it will help solve <br />the issues find what the magnitude of our problem <br />is in respect to disagreement over methodology. The <br />recommendation we have now essentially is simplified <br />need all the water We don't agree <br />with that methodology but until we get our water <br />availability study power <br />to appropriate it remains a hazy issue. Get the <br />water availability study done and that will help find <br />the magnitude of the problem disagree with <br />the methodology. Finally I think that-we have put <br />together-have recognized finally after five years of <br />bickering that we don't have a good sound methodology <br />for doing flow recommendations, we are doing it one <br />way on the Yampa, two ways on the 15 mile reach <br />another way on the Green and our criteria has always <br />been qualified scientifically sound method but we <br />want one that's-demonstrates data, <br />method and we don't have that so I think <br />that the agreement that Gene mentioned put together <br />by the committee to look at these methodology <br />So that is where we are on it, <br />we would support the water availability study on the <br />Yampa, we support completing the water availability <br /> <br />14 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.