Laserfiche WebLink
<br />l <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />r <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />000628 <br /> <br />owe Nevada that much water from its future unused apportionment, minus storage losses. <br /> <br />6. Page 6 , 4"' para.: "1 percent" should be "1.3 percent". <br /> <br />7. Page 6: some definitions should be provided including "shortage year", "indirect or in-lieu <br />storage". <br /> <br />8. Page 7, 2nd para.: 95 % seems to high, to be fair to Arizona. The percentage should be left to <br />the states to work out in their specific agreements. <br /> <br />9. Page 8, 4"' and 5"' bullets; This accounting method doesn't make sense, see comment no. 4. <br /> <br />10. Page] 0, 1" para.; What is "Arizona Demonstration Underground Storage Project"? <br /> <br />11. Page 10, last para.; Explain "avoid third party impacts", and define who "one entity" is. <br /> <br />- <br />12. Appendix B, Page 7; Irrigation districts are listed as recharge facilities. How will this be <br />done? Will there be recharge or is this the "in lieu" use - provide Colorado River water to the <br />irrigation districts in exchange for not pumping? This needs to be explained somewhere. <br /> <br />13. Appendix B - there appear to be two Figure 2's. <br />