BOARD00529

• Board Meeting Date: 10/10/1995
• Description: Special Meeting Minutes - October 10, 1995
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Minutes

Wright:

Smith

Kuhn:

In 30 years we're going to walk across the squawfish's back.

Does Tom Sharp's comment on the limitation, 40 years or until Elkhead 8 is built, or
some criteria of that nature. Is that in this discussion?

I think Elkhead actually fits in much more with the base flow than it does with the
carve out. Because the carve out is, again, its need is so far out, I mean, it covers
us...

Smith: It could be a source of augmentation.

Wells:

Wright:

Right, but earlier on. If its 52 you don't have to augment. 52 we're saying its a
freebie.

Well, see, we can't get 52 on top flow. We need to go build out Elkhead.

General conversation - 4 people

Wells:

Harrison:

If 52 is where we're not interfering, and so therefore I don't think we do need to cut
that off.

Peter?

Evans: I tried yesterday the thrust of Tom Sharp's suggestion about trying to somehow the
construction of Elkhead, because, it came across to me that we shouldn't trust
somebody and we shouldn't protect the water right until we're sure Elkhead's built.
And I sort of think...now who's going to do this anyway...its not going to be
somebody other than us, and I think that we can pretty well count on going after
Elkhead, if that's what we decide we want to do. Its not that somebody else is going
to do it for us, so I'm not quite sure I understand what linkage he wanted to make
there. In terms of a duration, I think putting a time limit or a dropdead date, a
disappearance date on this water right would be shooting ourselves in the foot, and
we'll never get the Fish and Wildlife service to take these fish off the endangered
species list if they know that in 20 years or in 40 years that the water rights
protection in this basin just disappear. We're not just going to enforce a water right
for 40 or 50 years and then at some subsequent point, whenever, the water right
disappears. I don't see that that really serves what purpose...

Kuhn:

Peter, I agree with you, but I think that what this is going to take is the same thing as
the 581 case. Its going to take our recognition that we're gong to have to agree to the
various terms and conditions to administer this right, and that the Tom sharps and the
Margot Zallens are going to have to sit across the table and discuss the pros and cons
and those sort of things, and hopefully we're there. And in the period that the
RIPRAP acknowledges is needed to adjudicate these rights, we're all gong to be
reasonable and work out something. So I really don't see that kind of thing going

Minutes of October 10, 1995 Special CWCB Meeting