WSP09291 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

tr:JI ~- " . cr: N c. '." rl -' - . . i!--..----- --- -. --------------------- " , 47 perhaps be at step increases. In other words, instead of , " " opening your gates, bang, you get twenty-eight (28,000), " let's take a hypothetical case and just say that we open it up so that we increase the release at a thousand (1,000), two thousand (2,000) cubic-foot-per-second per day until " we get it up to whatever number we need to have it happen. . Is that kind of what you Were looking for in the way of an explanation? In other words, we're not going to just, bang, hit the release and we're not going to, bang, necessarily magically go to twenty-eight (28,000) unless it's required , in terms of what our forecasts and our predictions are. , ' , - MR. LANSING: I think the answer I'm trying to get here is, as the relative safety feature for both our , , , farmers and like this other gentleman was talking about in , " , ), ~lexico, since we know that we're not going to use that of million acre-feet in the CAP project for eight (8) or ten (10 years or their allotment of water isn't going to be used for ~ eight (8) or ten (10) years, could we not on an even average : ' every second of the month all year long release that water and hold this flow in the River to two (2,000) or three thousand (3,000) cubic-feet-per-second and then we have no flooding? ." PRESIDING OFFICER: That conceivably is a :i plan, if you favor flood control for instance as, you know ,,', MR. LANSING: Well, it's water we're going to '. I I I: II (JI f'll()1 r'll ,'~