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 />to appropriating water, appropriating 4 or 5 water <br />rights Basically water <br />development intensify and <br />ultimately result in the demise of this program if <br />you can't make some progress acquiring water <br />rights. two issues. One <br />methodologies are sufficient to withstand the legal <br />challenge courts and two how much water <br />is the state elect to acquire to appropriate for the <br />endangered fish. with respect to one but it is <br />required to withstand legal challenge, seems to us <br />that you simply do not go if the Service's flow <br />recommendations ____ withstand court challenge. <br />until find out before we do something <br />court rules, I know that the Service feels strongly <br />that these recommendations are technically sound and <br />are defensive but even if they are not, we loose <br />support we always have the option of going back and <br />refining those recommendations at that time. I think <br />there is a great advantage to this approach and <br />dealing with very specific issues with specific <br />solutions. My problem now is that the issue is very <br />abstract and has very little concrete basis on which <br />to determine what is defensible <br />methodology. with respect to item two how much water <br />state elect to appropriate of this water, we <br />recognize that there are a wide range of <br />biological factors that must be taken in <br />consideration such as how much water is specifically <br />and legally available water availability study <br />How an appropriation may effect the states <br />compact , how much water should be set aside <br />in a place like the Yampa Basin for future <br />development, these are all factors that we understand <br />must be addressed to appreciate must be <br /> <br />17 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.