My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP02643
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
2001-3000
>
WSP02643
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:37:54 PM
Creation date
10/11/2006 11:15:15 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8240.200.30.B
Description
UCRBRIP
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Date
8/1/1994
Author
CWCB
Title
Draft Issues Document for the Appropriation of Instream Flows by the Colorado Water Conservaiton Board for the Recovery of Endangered Fish Species of the Upper Colorado and San Juan River Basin
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Publication
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
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 />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />WATER DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE <br /> <br />The Board staff has proposed establishment ofa "Water Development Committee" in each Water <br />Division to determine both the "Water Development Projections" and any "Reasonably <br />Foreseeable Water Development Needs." Subsequently, it has been suggested that one committee <br />may be preferable. The following are some advantages and disadvantages the Board staff sees <br />to each approach. <br /> <br />Committees in Each Division <br /> <br />o A committee in each Division would be smaller and allow for more local input. <br />o There would likely be less disagreement. <br />o After each Division develops input, a conference committee consisting of representatives <br />from each Division may be necessary to arrive at final values. <br /> <br />One Committee <br /> <br />o If the one committee approach is determined to be most appropriate, the Colorado River <br />Policy Advisory Committee (Advisory Committee), which is already in place could serve in <br />that capacity. <br />o It may be more difficult to gain consensus with just one committee. <br />o If the Advisory Committee is used, some interests may not be represented and the committee <br />may need to be expanded. <br /> <br />DUTIES <br /> <br />I. <br /> <br />The Committee(s) would be chaired by a Board member or members. The chair and <br />Board staff would select the initial committee members. The size will be limited to no <br />more than 15 and contain balanced representation from agriculture, industry, municipal, <br />recreation and environmental interests. <br />The Committee(s) would be asked to identify what full build out depletions in the basin <br />might look like as will as any reasonably foreseeable development which may occur in <br />the next 5-years. The Committee(s) would need to arrive at a consensus position on what <br />the ultimate level of compact development should be and what is meant by "generous" <br />with respect to that level of development. <br />The Committee(s) would need to decide whether to use a water rights priority approach <br />as suggested initially or a demand approach. <br />Once questions 2 and 3 are answered, the appropriate process outlined below can be <br />refined and work on developing the values can begin. <br /> <br />2. <br /> <br />3. <br /> <br />4. <br /> <br />13 <br /> <br />COW 0384 <br /> <br />) <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.