Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Meyring: <br /> <br />Smith: <br /> <br />Meyring: <br /> <br />Harrison: <br /> <br />recovery flow water right, in the amount of all available flow, except for <br />development allowance, that the development allowance be in the amount of 52,000 <br />acre feet per year and distributed monthly, and that that be subject to specific terms <br />and conditions as to how its administered and how its precisely defined, that will be <br />worked out, and that in addition, that we would be...that under appropriate <br />circumstances, after consideration by the Board, that we would further development <br />up to 72,000 acre feet in addition to the first development allowance of 52,000 feet, <br />or what's available under the compact, whichever occurs first, by virtue of some <br />appropriate proceeding along the lines, I gather, of a modification proceeding. If <br />that's anywhere close to the motion, let's have a second. <br /> <br />Question. <br /> <br />I would second that. <br /> <br />Eric said all remaining or as an alternative the exceedence ideas. <br /> <br />You're right. I'm sorry, I'm not trying to slip that through on you, I totally forgot. So <br />the motion is, in the alternative, all remaining water less developmental allowance, or <br />20% exceedence in the winter base flow months and 10% exceedence in the runoff <br />months. and I gather the sense of the motion is that we would make that <br />determination later after we'd figured out better which way the winds are blowing on <br />that. <br /> <br />Smith: That helps me much. Thanks. <br /> <br />Harrison: <br /> <br />Kuhn: <br /> <br />Harrison: <br /> <br />T.Right: <br /> <br />Kuhn: <br /> <br />T.Right: <br /> <br />I apologize. There is a motion seconded. What further discussion do we have on it? <br />I have one question. Eric, you said 52,000 above Maybell. What happens if there is <br />proposed development between the Maybell gage and the confluence of Little <br />Snake? Isn't the point of...aren't we really saying a development allowance above the <br />Little Snake? <br /> <br />OK, I would change that from above the lower terminus of the proposed in stream <br />flow right. <br /> <br />OK. Other questions? Questions from the public? Yes, T. Right. <br /> <br />Eric, refresh my memory on current depletions, and what would <br />that...(inaudible)...and current depletions in the basin, Eric, what is that proposed? <br /> <br />The current is about 110, I think its about 112, the additional 52 would take us up to <br />about 165, and then with the additional 72, we're up in the neighborhood of 235,000. <br />Essentially, we're... <br /> <br />(Inaudible) <br /> <br />Minutes of October 10, 1995 Special CWCB Meeting <br />