Laserfiche WebLink
i <br />� s <br />x <br />depends on instream flow, stock water purposes <br />possibilities, and another concern we have is what <br />happens to people already have instream flow rights. <br />Can they be taken away from them or One <br />thing I would like to add another original <br />'legislation. An associate of mine Bob Weaver one <br />of the original drafting who very much wanted <br />to be here today but he couldn't be here because of a <br />conflict, clarification need to ,pass <br />on one for him. First the use of the word <br />"minimum" earlier Mr. Weaver <br />drafting people: not be completed <br />because of the possible kZ&eof the past <br />difficult word Secondly, firing <br />we're not _that the CWCB is the appropriate body <br />to hold instream flow rights _the: State through the <br />Board acquire rights instream <br />flow rights. We are merely saying that though the <br />Board We think the best to do that is <br />establish a process wherein — effec4, <br />water users local _ .,uater pro -4 ect. <br />consider we think that create more <br />problems than it will solve. We think that this is <br />the water study called for in senate bill 15 and the <br />proposed — water equal opportunity <br />Bishop Do you have any questions? Senator McCormick. <br />McCormick What was the name of the drafter that you mentioned? <br />Easley Bob Weaver. <br />McCormick What is his current employment? <br />Easley He is the resource official <br />—23— <br />