Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />1 <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />35 <br /> <br />have actually occurred that we're stipulating now as to. <br /> <br />If somebody should come in and try to rig up a new <br /> <br />exchange for the first time, we potentially take objection <br /> <br /> <br />to that. Would it serve the purpose to insert that word? <br /> <br /> <br />MR. ROBBINS: What word is that? <br /> <br /> <br />MR. McDONALD: Insert the work "historically" <br /> <br /> <br />the fourth line, "historically has been and will in the <br />future be used." <br /> <br />MR. ROBBINS: I don't think I'd prefer to put it <br /> <br />in in this circumstance. In some circumstances I'm not <br /> <br />adverse to it, but it seems to me that exchanges are <br /> <br />permitted and so long as the structure through which the <br />exchanges will occur are identified, they ought to be <br />free to as much flexibility as they are entitled to under <br /> <br />the existing statutes. <br /> <br /> <br />It would be different if the language that I have <br /> <br />moved were to state that they shall be free to just conduct <br /> <br /> <br />exchanges anyway they wish, but here we're talking about <br /> <br />a recognized water management system. And it seems to me tha <br /> <br />the Board can make the decision it may wish to attempt to <br /> <br />insert itself into that system. <br />My suggestion is that it is better for us to allow <br />those processes to continue as they have in the past. <br />MR. McDONALD: Okay. <br /> <br />MR. VANDEMOER: Question. <br />