My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP02572
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
2001-3000
>
WSP02572
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:37:32 PM
Creation date
10/11/2006 11:13:22 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8210.470
Description
Pacific Southwest Interagency Committee
State
CO
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
5
Date
4/5/1978
Author
PSIAC
Title
Minutes of the 78-1 Meeting - April 5-6 1978
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
46
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 />B-3 <br /> <br /> <br />002758 <br /> <br />the narrative to see that it is still somewhat of what we had provided <br />them in the beginning. Then provide them comments on that, I did <br />receive a call from the Council about a month ago, they had questions <br />on some of my comments. We discussed those to some degree. Some <br />things I comment on every time and it doesn't make any difference. <br />Like the map of the region, I keep commenting on that, they keep <br />putting California in the Lower Colorado. I keep telling them that is <br />not right. They say well we changed the boundaries for the National <br />Report and I tell them well the data is not on those boundaries. <br />Well, they say, that's all right, we still changed the boundaries and <br />if you don't like it, why you can write a letter of comment and I told <br />them well, I've been doing that for years and it hasn't done any good, <br />I guess it's your report and I've spent about all the time I have to <br />spend on it. Another little item of comment that we had with them <br />was minimum flows in some of the streams, hoping that we maintain <br />minimum flows at the International Boundary that they have shown, <br />you would probably have to channelize to prevent flood flows. Their <br />past what the channel would now carry and it really related to about <br />what the minimum flow would have been before the comming of the white <br />man I think, that was without control. But they said well, that's <br />all right, that's what Fish and Wildlife had given them. But that's <br />the way it goes. Ours still show zero, but I think sometime in the <br />near future the Council will have their draft report out and they plan <br />to distribute it pretty much to the full group in each of the regions, <br />So this group may have that for comment prior to the next meeting. <br /> <br />Colonel Vandenberg. Prior to the meeting? <br /> <br />Mr. Johanson. I would expect so, they said February. The next <br />meeting is August so I would think maybe by that time you would have <br />them. <br /> <br />Colonel Vandenberg. Would we expect that to be an agenda item for <br />discussion at the next meeting? <br /> <br />Mr. Johanson. I would expect so, if they get it out before then. <br /> <br />Colonel Vandenberg. Would you be calling on this body to support <br />you in asking for reasonableness in what is finally put in the final <br />report? <br /> <br />Mr. Johanson. The parent group may wish to make some comment on <br />the report. I think the major problem is the boundaries. They stated <br />the boundaries at the beginning in their plan of study that followed <br />political boundaries now they have switched to hydrologic boundaries. <br /> <br />Colonel Vandenberg. It's hard telling when hydrology is going to <br />win out over politics isn't it or vice versa. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.