Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Kuhn: <br /> <br />Evans: <br /> <br />Kuhn: <br /> <br />Harrison: <br /> <br />Lile: <br /> <br />Harrison: <br /> <br />Lile: <br /> <br />Harrison: <br /> <br />just going to enforce a water right for 40 or 50 years and then at some subsequent <br />point, whenever, the water right disappears. I don't see that that really serves <br />what purpose... <br /> <br />Peter, I agree with you, but I think that what this is going to take is the same <br />thing as the 581 case. Its going to take our recognition that we're gong to have <br />to agree to the various terms and conditions to administer this right, and that the <br />Tom sharps and the Margot Zallens are going to have to sit across the table and <br />discuss the pros and cons and those sort of things, and hopefully we're there. And <br />in the period that the RIPRAP acknowledges is needed to adjudicate these rights, <br />we're all gong to be reasonable and work out something. So I really don't see <br />that kind of thing going into our motion because it really does, I think, bind your <br />hands when it comes to working with the Service and the water users in <br />developing the terms and conditions that meet both of their needs. <br /> <br />So all you're suggesting is that all these kinds of conditions could be <br />mellulously(?) clumped together into something that we'll work out later, and <br />maybe we'll better understand Tom's suggestion about expansion(?) of Elkhead <br />or something else, we can include them or not as we... <br /> <br />We're going to have to work it out, because they're going to file statement of <br />opposition and they're going to sit down and say we're not going to agree to a <br />decree unless you do this, this, and this. OK? And that's just the way oflife on <br />these rivers. You know? <br /> <br />Chuck? Did you have... <br /> <br />Well, I was just looking at Tom Sharp's....he said....partly his concern was that as <br />long as the MOA between the Fish and Wildlife Service and CWCB is in effect, <br />that this isn't an impact of , and then he suggested a 50 year alliance. <br />So those were the two things that he suggested. I just thought I'd tell you what <br />he had in his notes. <br /> <br />I liked the way Eric left it myself. If we want to put a termination possibility to <br />this thing that's tied to the recovery plan itself or the enforcement agreement or <br />whatnot, that's one thing, but a specific years sunset, I don't like that at all, that <br />gives us nothing but trouble. <br /> <br />It seems like to me, that sooner or later, if this all works properly, that compact <br />delivery requirements will merge with the water right requirements. So then the <br />governing thing will be the interstate compacts. <br /> <br />Now, we've kicked some of this around. Does that give you enough to go back <br />and remake the motion as a motion? Does anyone else have any comments or <br /> <br />Minutes of October 10, 1995 Special CWCB Meeting <br />