Laserfiche WebLink
<br />offer you make to the group is something the group ought to consider. We would consider it with our respective lawyers at <br />this point, but I think its worth considering. <br /> <br />Tom: Other comments? <br /> <br />Lisa Darling: Would you consider working with the constraints that others have, one ways to avoid the operations mess is <br />to conform to the limitations as they exist. <br /> <br />Rod K: Storage and release timing and volume. And I think I understand their water rights situation, if you had some <br />storage you could storage it as it came in, but exchange opportunities are few and far between. <br /> <br />Kevin: It wouldn't be possible for the agency to commit to a strict schedule without the opportunity to exchange upstream <br />to Bear Creek. <br /> <br />Rod: Exchanges with Bear Creek are rare and you have to be ready to go with it when it happens. You can't exchange at <br />the rate that this mine seepage is occurring, you can't exchange at that rate and achieve your full potential. <br /> <br />Lisa Darling: Then the answer would be no. <br /> <br />Rod: I think it would be maybe. <br /> <br />Betty: In a May 2006 special meeting, determined that in order not to have the operations plan go through a revision and <br />all subsequent analysis be revised, if any water users drop out and additional water be made available for new or existing, <br />those users taking on other's portion or all of their water storage would commit to releasing the timing and amount of <br />release the same as the previous water users had committed to. May 2006. <br /> <br />Kevin: What document was that? <br /> <br />Betty: That was a meeting of the water users that was held right after the general project meeting. <br /> <br />Kevin: So the water users would be free to amend that? <br /> <br />Betty: But if you do and the result is a change in the operation plan, that holds up the EIS. And the idea was to keep the <br />operation plan the same. <br /> <br />Rod K: There is the flexibility among he water users as long as the water user remains the same. <br /> <br />Rick: Reasonable approximation made so that various studies could go fOlWard, flood, recreational, but no commitment <br />made to my knowledge by users that they would hold to those reasonable approximations. So no certain operating plan. <br /> <br />Betty: The thing is a new user would not result in a change in the operating plan while the EIS is being prepared, that <br />would result in a delay. <br /> <br />Rick: I think your previous lawyers made a big mistake, they were asked to come to these meeting, the importance of the <br />process, and for whatever reason they didn't come up. We said the bus was leaving, you need to be here. They didn't <br />come. We made our process, they came and said we're sorry, we offered 100 AF, they refused. You need to say there was <br />a mistake, motivate this group to let you back in. Don't think having a water right doesn't give you the right to this. If you <br />want to have something happen you have to motivate them to suspend their agreement and let you back in. Some more <br />thanjust paying the cost that incurred, but a reason of why they should let you do this. My personal opinion. <br /> <br />I R of Tom: Letter of what happened, there's a lot more that happened since then. Significant amount of work that Mt. <br />Carbon would need to do. <br /> <br />Rick: About 40K AF were wanted by the group, we only got 20K AF, everyone got less than they wanted, hard to get them <br />to let more away. <br /> <br />Kevin: We don't want a position of animosity, either. Don't see the record the same way, want to find a way to get <br />something. Offered 1/8 of what we wanted. Want to find a constructive and creative way to get what we would like. <br /> <br />Tom: Thanks, Kevin, appreciate your income. <br /> <br />13 <br />