Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Harrison: <br /> <br />Wells: <br /> <br />Wright: <br /> <br />Smith <br /> <br />Kuhn: <br /> <br />Smith: <br /> <br />Wells: <br /> <br />Wright: <br /> <br />have to look at it, nobody needs to come talk to us. After that, I think that people <br />do need to come talk to us. <br /> <br />That our general criteria are what? Some sort of balancing between compact <br />needs and the needs of the fish? <br /> <br />Right. With presumably a lot more knowledge because maybe this may be 30 <br />years from now, and they will be a lot smarter and we'll know a lot more. <br /> <br />In 30 years we're going to walk across the squawfish's back. <br /> <br />Does Tom Sharp's comment on the limitation, 40 years or until Elkhead 8 is built, <br />or some criteria of that nature. Is that in this discussion? <br /> <br />I think Elkhead actually fits in much more with the base flow than it does with <br />the carve out. Because the carve out is, again, its need is so far out, I mean, it <br />covers us... <br /> <br />It could be a source of augmentation. <br /> <br />Right, but earlier on. If its 52 you don't have to augment. 52 we're saying its <br />a freebie. <br /> <br />Well, see, we can't get 52 on top flow. We need to go build out Elkhead. <br /> <br />General conversation - 4 people <br /> <br />Wells: <br /> <br />Harrison: <br /> <br />Evans: <br /> <br />If 52 is where we're not interfering, and so therefore I don't think we do need to <br />cut that off. <br /> <br />Peter? <br /> <br />I tried yesterday the thrust of Tom Sharp's suggestion about trying to somehow <br />the construction of Elkhead, because, it came across to me that we <br />shouldn't trust somebody and we shouldn't protect the water right until we're sure <br />Elkhead's built. And I sort ofthink...now who's going to do this anyway...its not <br />going to be somebody other than us, and I think that we can pretty well count on <br />going after Elkhead, if that's what we decide we want to do. Its not that <br />somebody else is going to do it for us, so I'm not quite sure I understand what <br />linkage he wanted to make there. In terms of a duration, I think putting a time <br />limit or a dropdead date, a disappearance date on this water right would be <br />shooting ourselves in the foot, and we'll never get the Fish and Wildlife service <br />to take these fish off the endangered species list if they know that in 20 years or <br />in 40 years that the water rights protection in this basin just disappear. We're not <br /> <br />Minutes of October 10, 1995 Special CWCB Meeting <br />