Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Gimble: <br /> <br />Harrison: <br /> <br />Gimble: <br /> <br />Harrison: <br /> <br />Wells: <br /> <br />Harrison: <br /> <br />All: <br /> <br />Harrison: <br /> <br />shouldn't file a statement of opposition, _- to Jennifer's thing, but what you <br />want to do in that case is to say this is to let you be aware that there is a base <br />flow issue and you may have to augment at some point in the future, or something <br />like that. Maybe not being in their cases is not a good way to handle it. Whereas <br />we could <br /> <br />The concern I think Eric was trying to address was even by just the Board filing <br />a statement of opposition that's going to set off bells and whistles for people and <br />start maybe keeping the State Engineer from granting well permits. <br /> <br />I would like to see us explore further a I % development allowance as a de <br />minimis standard base development allowance...which is not selective <br />subordination, obviously, but which is workable, because I think we're going to <br />get a lot of noise at the front end the base flow that we don't need. <br /> <br />Then why don't we change the number? <br /> <br />The number won't fix you...its gotta come off the bottom. I mean, no matter <br />which number you pick, there will be some probability of a year dryer than that, <br />and so it needs to come off the bottom, not the top, of the base flow. If you <br />reduce the base flow, then you're saying well, yeah, if there is 45 cfs, cool, then <br />you can appropriate. But on those, now, 18% of the years in which there are less <br />than 10, then you can't. You haven't gotten out of the problem. <br /> <br />You also haven't done anything about more water in the river. <br /> <br />The amount of water in the river is going to be affected by not more than half a <br />second foot, .45 second foot, one way or the other. The amount of water in the <br />river is going to be 45.55, period. So as far as this issue is concerned, whether <br />it comes off the top or the bottom, makes all the difference to all the people who <br />have to jump through the hoops. I don't know that I suggest that as an <br />amendment to the motion, other than just something the staff can keep thinking <br />about.. again, I believe the issues identified for purposes of moving from <br />preliminary to final, I think we can just go with the motion as it is. Is there any <br />more question? If not, lets call the question. All in favor, indicate by saying Aye. <br /> <br />Aye <br /> <br />Opposed? It carries. <br /> <br />Now what do you desire to do about the recovery flow? <br /> <br />Motion No.2: <br />Tape 3, @1985 <br /> <br />Recovery Flow <br /> <br />Minutes of October 10, 1995 Special CWCB Meeting <br />