Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />David Harrison: <br /> <br />Patricia Wells: <br /> <br />David Harrison: <br /> <br />Wendy Weiss: <br /> <br />Eric Kuhn: <br /> <br />Wendy Weiss: <br /> <br />Eric Kuhn: <br /> <br />David Harrison: <br /> <br />Jim Lochhead: <br /> <br />Eric Kuhn: <br /> <br />Patricia Wells: <br /> <br />Jim Lochhead: <br /> <br />Gene Jencsok: <br /> <br />David Harrison: <br /> <br />Patricia Wells: <br /> <br />OK. <br /> <br />Then it would be hard to exceed more than whats in the river. <br /> <br />Yes. Now, we've interrupted your making of the motion to try to clarify <br />that. Wendy? <br /> <br />(inaudible)...I'm not sure I understand this. Try to phrase these questions <br />so that its easy to _' I'm not sure .....qualifying statement that we <br />know...that eventually exceed the recommendation of the Service. Is that <br />intended to imply only...(?)..or is that intended to imply either that the <br />Board does not...(?)... <br /> <br />My intent was that if the Board had to further describe or quantify, in that <br />event, we would not exceed the ,flows that are recommended. OK? Its to <br />cover that option, OK. Now, we may want to talk about that...that was my <br />intent, that may not be best approach to take, but my intent was that it <br />would only be a qualifier on the quantification. <br /> <br />And not on the flow(?) <br /> <br />Yes. <br /> <br />OK <br /> <br />Would it be simpler, Eric, just to say all remaining flows up to the amount <br />recommended by the Fish and Wildlife Service? <br /> <br />I'm not sure it would. <br /> <br />Because then you would have to determine what they asked for. <br /> <br />That's fine. I'll withdraw my question. <br /> <br />I wonder if Eric doesn't want to add some language that if the _?_ <br />varies, then we want to consider the peak flow recommendations that the <br />Service has made, because if the numbers are our final recommendations <br />for appropriation are less than our numbers, then the peak flows that the <br />Service has recommended are not exceeded. <br /> <br />Its a good point, but I don't kriow that we want to refine it too far. What <br />we're trying to say so far is flow remaining after the carveout Board <br />reserving the right to further quantify or refine the description. ..how did <br />we say that again? <br /> <br />Or further specifically define, I think. <br />