Laserfiche WebLink
interpretation of some of the amendments that Senator <br />McCormick has recommended suggests that _ <br />section one and two of the bill Fully reflect the <br />concerns for which the Board was requesting the <br />reaffirmation of the But we concur <br />with all the changes the Senator has proposed. Let <br />me just comment briefly for the record, the Board's <br />understanding of the statutes, of Senate Bill 97, <br />The Board's position has always been that no person <br />or entities are authorized or permitted to <br />appropriate or hold any instream flow rights for any <br />purpose whatsoever except for the Board. The Board <br />could acquire water or water rights in addition to <br />the original appropriations for the purposes of an <br />instream flow, let's say under contract or some kind <br />of agreement with the person or entity who might wish <br />to provide water or water rights for instream flow <br />purposes. The agreement could spell out particular <br />conditions under which those rights would be made <br />available. Third, the Board has the right to prevent <br />injury to an instream flow right or to choose to <br />allow injury to occur in light of the reasonable <br />standard. We believe that reasonable standard is an <br />essential element of the administration of the <br />instream flow program. It requires the Board to <br />balance the development of water resources with the <br />preservation of the environment. To the State with <br />the issue did not occur solely in 1986. It occurred <br />a couple of times previously where various interests <br />attempted to obtain instream flow purposes. Bill <br />McDonald and myself, and members of the Board were <br />able to those people out of continuing their claims <br />and skirting the issue: But in 1986 the Federal <br />powers and other parties challenged the basic <br />strength of our exclusive right to hold such filings <br />for the State. We believe that their interests are <br />—17— <br />