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 />41 <br /> <br />addressed to you. It seems to me that the policy of the <br /> <br />Board is to recognize exchanges that have taken place and <br /> <br />are management tools, the water users up and down the <br /> <br />stream . <br /> <br />David's right. There is no requirement that those <br /> <br />exchanges be adjudicated. They can be under the statute but <br /> <br />not necessarily required to be. Could we put some kind of <br /> <br />language in each of the decrees that recognizes that existing <br /> <br />exchanges will be honored. Can that be done? <br /> <br />And then I think we can eliminate a lot of this hassle. <br />I just throw those out for consideration. <br /> <br />CHAIRMAN KROEGER: Your thought on the third point <br /> <br />is that this apply to all of the adjudications? <br /> <br /> <br />MR. DANIELSON: Yes. In each of the instances <br /> <br /> <br />that I'm aware of when people have raised the issue of <br /> <br /> <br />exchanges, the Board has always said, "Right, we don't want <br /> <br />to interfere with that." <br /> <br /> <br />Why can't we just put some standard boiler plate <br /> <br />language in? YOu know, I hear what Mr. Johnston is saying <br /> <br /> <br />in terms of the future, but I'm talking about language that <br />recognizes existing exchanges. <br /> <br />CHAIP~ KROEGER: In this I interpret he has no <br /> <br />objection. <br />MR. JOHNSTON:, I would have no objection to that. <br /> <br />In fact, the big thing I'm having an objection to is the fact <br />