My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
INSPEC37718
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Inspection
>
INSPEC37718
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 9:43:07 PM
Creation date
11/18/2007 11:02:39 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2005006
IBM Index Class Name
Inspection
Doc Date
8/14/2006
Doc Name
Inspection Reports response and information
From
DRMS deg
To
Moffat County - Road Department
Inspection Date
7/13/2006
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
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).
View images
View plain text
1. The following a-mail is by Steve Vandiver from last year: "Today, I had an attorney <br />from South Fork challenge the 72-hour rule on using a storage pond to store <br />irrigation water in temporarily so as to be able to irrigate with a larger head than the <br />decree provided. Is there anything written which I can refer to? This guy will not <br />take my word for it. Can transmountain diversion water decreed for irrigation be <br />stored in such a pond and not be subject to the same rule?" <br />ARGUMENT: Since the return flows can be claimed by the owner and they do not <br />necessarily have to be continued to be returned to the stream as part of the natural <br />system and perhaps be reused for irrigation or other uses, does the owner have the <br />right to just store the water without having to comply with the 72-hour rule if it is <br />transbasin water they diverted in the first place into the pond? <br />The 72-hour rule applies. Ken Knox will draft a new policy confirming policy on this <br />subject to replace an old letter written by Hinderlider. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.