My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD00744
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
1-1000
>
BOARD00744
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 2:53:49 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 6:43:45 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
7/10/1973
Description
Agenda or Table of Contents, Minutes, Memos
Board Meetings - Doc Type
Meeting
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
91
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />Mr. Vandemoer: Mr. Chairman. <br /> <br />Mr. Stapleton: Mr. Vandemoer. <br /> <br />Mr. Vandemoer: As a farmer. as I understand it. these rights are junior <br />to any right that is now on any of the rivers now. Right? <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Mr. Sparks: If this is approved today by this board. the date of this <br />right will be - (Well. I think they are dated tomorrow. Aren't they. <br />Ray?) <br /> <br />Mr. Moses: July 12. <br /> <br />Mr. Sparks: July 12. The appropriation date would be July 12. 1973. <br />They would be junior to anything on the river today. <br /> <br />Mr. Moses: The real value to the right is the fact that it is a junior <br />right and must be considered in the vent of any change in the future. <br /> <br />Mr. Vandemoer: In other words. when you say minimum flows. this is <br />minimum flows only after the senior rights have their water? <br /> <br />Mr. Ten Evck: Mr. Chairman. <br /> <br />Mr. Stapleton: Mr. Ten Eyck. <br /> <br />Mr. Ten Evck: I have had some conversation at lunch time with Division <br />of Wildlife people and I wanted to clarify that what Larry has proposed <br />is completely based on the existing operating principles and it doesn't <br />purport to expand or enlarge the existing minimum flow requirements. <br />I think some Wildlife people thought that under Senate Bill 97 that if <br />the Water. Conservation Board is going to go back and look at this and <br />if we needed 75 second feet instead of 30. that we would come in and ask <br />for a right for 75 second feet. I think we ought to make it clear that <br />all this is doing is adding some geography to certain minimum flow <br />numbers and is really only recording and more fully defining the minimum <br />flow requirements that were already in the project that was authorized. <br /> <br />Mr. Moses: We met with the state and federal representatives. I think <br />I am expressing their sentiments probably when they are not at all I <br />satisfied with the amount of these quantities. but we pointed out to <br />them that this battle has already been fought a long time ago and that <br />there is no way that it can be changed now. When the Fryingpan project <br />was authorized. there were people who thought these were too high and <br /> <br />-50- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.