Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Wells: <br /> <br />Harrison: <br /> <br />Wells: <br /> <br />Kuhn: <br /> <br />Wells; <br /> <br />Harrison: <br /> <br />Wells: <br /> <br />start pushing on this one until the 52's gone, and then we don't start pushing on the <br />other one as long as additional increments of development are determined to not be <br />adversely impacting the recovery of the fish. We kind of run our own little section 7 <br />with that. <br /> <br />I think that's, I mean with the 52,000, we don't get into the act at all. Basically, we're <br />not there, we're not participating. But one you get past the 52, which as I understand <br />it, is the recently foreseeable development, its over a long period of time, but I want <br />to tell John that when you provide water for humans, 40 years is a minimum of time, <br />because they live a lot longer than that. But to look to that horizon. So that's a <br />reasonably foreseeable, generous, I think, development allowance that should take <br />care of what people think will happen. so we ought to stay out of that all together. <br />After that, I think we ought not to say we won't exercise it unless at least 72,000, I <br />think what we have to do after that is say, then we have to look at it case by case, <br />based upon the fish biology. Where are we now? so what we have hopefully done is <br />given an amount that is a reasonable allowance for growth for forty years, and also <br />an amount that is low enough that the fish shouldn't suffer with that development <br />spread out in this manner. So we're not in it at all at the beginning, and then we are <br />in it after that. I don't think you can say anything like another 72,000 is OK, because <br />I don't think that's... <br /> <br />But how far would you go...would you go beyond 72? <br /> <br />No I would not go beyond 72. <br /> <br />I'm putting the outer limits on the modifiability of 72,000 af, I would suggest that we <br />enter into appropriate terms and conditions to modify the right, and those kind of <br />things that you're talking about are in the terms and conditions. To modify the right, <br />up to an additional...to allow an additional consumptive use of 50,000 which may <br />require a carveout above the 72. Now how the staff would word that in a final notice <br />IS.. <br /> <br />But based on the time, once you get past 52, based on an analysis in each case of <br />what harm might result to the stream and to the fish, you see what I mean? Maybe <br />we're being safe with 52, we think it won't harm the fish, we think it will take care of <br />reasonable growth. That's a great way to have carve out, we don't have to look at it, <br />nobody needs to come talk to us. After that, I think that people do need to come talk <br />to us. <br /> <br />That our general criteria are what? Some sort of balancing between compact needs <br />and the needs of the fish? <br /> <br />Right. With presumably a lot more knowledge because maybe this may be 30 years <br />from now, and they will be a lot smarter and we'll know a lot more. <br /> <br />Minutes of October 10, 1995 Special CWCB Meeting <br />