Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Gimble: <br /> <br />Harrison: <br /> <br />Gimble: <br /> <br />Harrison: <br /> <br />Wells: <br /> <br />Harrison: <br /> <br />All: <br /> <br />Harrison: <br /> <br />being in their cases is not a good way to handle it. Whereas we could <br /> <br />The concem I think Eric was trying to address was even by just the Board filing a <br />statement of opposition that's going to set off bells and whistles for people and start <br />maybe keeping the State Engineer from granting well permits. <br /> <br />I would like to see us explore further a 1 % development allowance as a de minimis <br />standard base development allowance...which is not selective subordination, <br />obviously, but which is workable, because I think we're going to get a lot of noise at <br />the front end the base flow that we don't need. <br /> <br />Then why don't we change the number? <br /> <br />The number won't fix you...its gotta come off the bottom. I mean, no matter which <br />number you pick, there will be some probability of a year dryer than that, and so it <br />needs to come off the bottom, not the top, of the base flow. If you reduce the base <br />flow, then you're saying well, yeah, if there is 45 cfs, cool, then you can appropriate. <br />But on those, now, 18% of the years in which there are less than 10, then you can't. <br />You haven't gotten out of the problem. <br /> <br />You also haven't done anything about more water in the river. <br /> <br />The amount of water in the river is going to be affected by not more than half a <br />second foot, .45 second foot, one way or the other. The amount of water in the river <br />is going to be 45.55, period. So as far as this issue is concerned, whether it comes off <br />the top or the bottom, makes all the difference to all the people who have to jump <br />through the hoops. I don't know that I suggest that as an amendment to the motion, <br />other than just something the staff can keep thinking about..again, I believe the issues <br />identified for purposes of moving from preliminary to final, I think we can just go <br />with the motion as it is. Is there any more question? If not, lets call the question. <br />All in favor, indicate by saying Aye. <br /> <br />Aye <br /> <br />Opposed? It carries. <br /> <br />Now what do you desire to do about the recovery flow? <br /> <br />Motion No.2: Recovery Flow <br />Tape 3, @ 1985 <br /> <br />Kuhn: <br /> <br />I could suggest, and this would be in the form of a motion that is not yet...we want to <br />throw it out for discussion, and that's that we would move or we would direct the <br />staff to proceed with a final notice on the recovery water right that would be at least <br />one day junior to the base flow, making it clear they are separate rights, separate flow <br /> <br />Minutes of October 10, 1995 Special CWCB Meeting <br />