Laserfiche WebLink
Tape 2 Starts here <br />Eric Kuhn The Golden case to and see how that impacts upstream development. If it does? <br />Eric Wilkinson I did hear a few presenters say that we need to look at the reasonableness and possibly <br />look at somehow defining what would be reasonable. <br />Eric Kuhn — I think the term that I like was reasonable limits and reasonable applications, whatever those <br />are. <br />Eric Wilkinson — reasonable is a big one. Glen? <br />Glen Porzak - May I comment on the whole kind of tweaking approach. Um, on the reasonableness of <br />appropriation. I have a lot comment about the fact that that is very dangerous and slippery slope. If we <br />start setting parameters there you unwittingly set parameters in other areas that may come back to bite <br />you. Of all the testimony and concern that I heard. In my mind the one I don't think is practical problem <br />but ) know it's a very emotional problem... and if you are going to do any kind of legislative tweaking it <br />would something that would a simple as saying that in channel appropriations can not be used in a manner <br />that would prevent the use of Colorado compact entitlement. Um, because I don't know of anyone that's <br />out there that would adversely impact the compact entitlement but maybe that is something that is on <br />pepple's minds at least. <br />EW Yes Patti? <br />Patti Wells — On the reasonableness for a minute. I don't think reasonable is necessarily a slippery slope <br />because its already defined for most other uses. You know how much water you are going to use in this, <br />you know what agricultural is, you know what waste is. I still don't understand what it is here. What <br />bothers me about the thousand cfs. Is that it reminds of the Fish and Wildlife Service and what they do for <br />the fish. They said what would the fish like. Well the fish would like this peak and they this. You know <br />and we all rant and rave about that and how unfair that is. Why should you have to designer theme park <br />for fish? Well clearly we are looking at designer theme park for kayakers. Do they want a little wave or a <br />big wave? Well they like the big wave and they like the big waves as often as they can have them. You <br />know, and it's this kind of, and so is a bigger wave a beneficial use when a smaller wave would still get <br />them over the rock. I really don't know what it means and I don't....When I ask the question about if it <br />will operate at 300 cfs that you could get really a great ride at 500. Is 500 cfs reasonable or not? And I <br />don't think there is an answer to that. <br />Glen Porzak But the courts can decide those kinds of issues and the evidence can be put forward. I mean <br />there is ample evidence I am sure on both sides I know what the evidence is on our side. First of all I just <br />like we had these faulty definitions where we started calling kayak courses recreational instream flow <br />rights. Which is as Mike pointed out, is totally improper. <br />Patti Wells and Glen Porzak speaking at same time. <br />Glen Porzak I keep hearing a 1000 cfs first of all that's not what Golden file for, second of all the 900 <br />foot uh 900 cfs amount that is filed on was one month out of the year and then it ratcheted down to I think <br />its something on the order of less than a 100 second feet in certain months. So lets put in perspective. <br />Patti Wells — Un uh 900 ratcheted 900 one month of the year. <br />33 <br />