Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Janice Sheftel: <br /> <br />Patricia Wells: <br /> <br />David Harrison: <br /> <br />Patricia Wells: <br /> <br />Eric Kuhn: <br /> <br />David Harrison: <br /> <br />Chuck Lile: <br /> <br />David Harrison: <br /> <br />Patricia Wells: <br /> <br />different ways. We are talking about something like all the water that's - <br />left. When we go to put a specific cubic foot per second number on a . <br />month, its a way of trying to numerically represent this other abstraction. <br />Its a number that we know is not there all the time, this is a 1995 water <br />right, it is a number that is designed to be there, depending on which <br />exceedence you use to arrive at it, only 25% of the time. So my point is <br />merely that I'm not sure that we're quantifying it in the sense of changing <br />the amount of water that's really there, I think we are changing the...we're <br />reserving(?) the right to change the way in which it is described. And I <br />think that gets at what you're saying. <br /> <br />I still like quantify...We could say "enter providing numeric description of' <br />or something like that... but I still do want the word quantify, because that's <br />what we're used to talking about in usual appropriations. So I still want <br />to say quantify or something. <br /> <br />And I agree with Janice that we ought not to preclude the options of a <br />numeric value should God visit us and give us a number that everyone <br />would agree with. But in the meantime, this seems to me that we don't <br />do a very good job at appropriating the peak...that we don't know how to <br />deal with it, we don't know how to describe it..we can't come up with a <br />number that people agree with, so therefore we've sort of developed this <br />middle way of going, which is to file for remaining flows because that <br />does preserve this variability that we can't predict, but in the process, if <br />there are numbers that people want to agree to, that would be delightful. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />How about if we took your language and added a little bit? "Deserving <br />right to quantify or more specifically defme flows as appropriate." <br /> <br />Great. <br /> <br />Great. <br /> <br />Does our scribner have that? I've got it written down if you have to ask <br />about it. The other question that I had was the sort of safety valve on long <br />term hydrological shifts or for other reasons compact availability that we <br />might need to modify beyond the amount that's specifically set up for <br />modifying. <br /> <br />Was it in the staff recommendation that it was in the motion? <br /> <br />How did you say that? <br /> <br />I said...that we would reserve..1 really don't know if you can reserve this <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Minutes of December 13, 1995 Special eWeB Meeting <br />