Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br /> <br />May I announce that there is an attendance <br />list circulating some place. We'd like to <br />have everybody's name on the list. It happens <br />to be back near the door over there. Has it <br />been around? If you'll circulate it over on <br />the north side of the room. we'll get every- <br />body's name on the list. <br /> <br />How about other members of the Board? <br /> <br />The nice part about having a lawyer that <br />you pay for. when you get into a jam you say <br />'Well. my lawyer looked at it. it must have <br />been all right'. So this is the point when <br />we always ask the lawyer that we pay for to <br />give his critical comments before we proceed <br />further. So. Ray. what can you say at this <br />point?" <br /> <br />MR. MOSES: <br /> <br />"Let me start off, on a relatively sour <br />no~e a~d then back up a littl~ bit. <br /> <br />I think that there are great similarities <br />between the Water Board draft and Senate Bill <br />81. However. there is a significant differ- <br />ence and I think it should be recognized. I <br />don't think that Senate Bill 81 goes nearly <br />as far in integrating groundwater with surface <br />water rights as does the Water Board draft. <br />This is of tremendous importance because the <br />thrust of the mandate given to the Director <br />of Natural Respurces by Senate Bill 407 was <br />to produce legislation which would maximize <br />the use of our entire water resource. ground <br />and s~~face. The Board bill goes further <br />than does Senate Bill in. In that respect I <br />thinlf it does more to accomplish the task. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I agree with Mr. Geissinger that by and <br />large thediffere~ces are perhaps procedural <br />andthe~e differences could be ironed out by <br />conference. 'I am hopeful that Mr. Ten Eyck <br />later on in the proceedings will make the <br />motion which the Chairman indicated he will <br />willingly entertain. <br />