Laserfiche WebLink
Fritz Holleman <br />24:13 — 33:39 <br />Thanks, its an honor to be here this morning. We do have a threshold issue. As we <br />explained. The county has already agreed to a couple of compromises in this case. <br />We've agreed to administer both boating parks at the Wellsville gage, and we reduced <br />our claim in August to the lower flow amount. Now the CWCB staff and some objectors <br />have argued that you can't consider the application on the basis of those compromises. <br />We disagree. The guiding authority here is the Supreme Court's Gunnison decision. <br />What that decision explained, as Mr. Sharp also reiterated, is that the applicant's current <br />plan and intent must be the starting place for CWCB review. Our current plan and intent <br />is expressed by application with the modifications as we have submitted it. In keeping <br />with the Gunnison decision, we think that's what you should consider. I need you to <br />know, and you may not, that the Attorney General has filed on your behalf in the <br />Steamboat RICD Case, an amended motion to remand, where it is making the exact. same <br />argument that we are making for you here today. That amended motion to remand, <br />which is in your materials as Exhibit C 15, states that a remand should occur in that case, <br />precisely so that you can consider the terms of a proposed settlement that we are working <br />on in that matter. These inconsistent positions raise a host of concerns, but the one I'd <br />like to note now is that we think your argument in the Steamboat case is a better one, and <br />we would encourage you to consider the application as we filed it on the basis of these <br />modifications, and as Steve said, on the basis hopefully of other modifications maybe we <br />are able to out in the months ahead. <br />Continuing with the Gunnison decision, as Mr. Sharp said, the role of the Board in RICD <br />review was carefully outlined there..." <br />