Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />4. <br /> <br />Should the monthly distribution be defined before or after filing? Staff recommends <br />:lUi; tIll! monthly distribution afthe Carve Out be defined after filing. The monthly <br />distribution of the Carve Out should be negotiated during water court proceedings as a <br />number of interests want to consulted on this matter. Water users have indicated that <br />while a Carve Out concept is acceptable, they do not favor a monthly distribution of it. <br />We plan to review this issue at the December 13. 1995 meeting. <br />Are Senior and Junior water rights counted against the carve out or only juniors? <br />Juniors and seniors both should be counted against the Carve Out and there appears to <br />be consensus on this issue if can agree on the current level of depletions from which we <br />start counting against the Carve Out. Staff believes this is an administrative issue that <br />can be worked out during water court proceedings. <br />HOII" should the carve out accounting he done? Staff recommends that administratil'e <br />issues be negotiated during wacer court proceedings. <br />Modifiable Portion of the Recoverv Flow Water Rie:ht: <br />Can the CWCB assure its intent that a portion of the Recovery Flow Water Right is <br />modifiable through language in the decree or by legislation which amends the state <br />instream flow statute? The AG's Office advises us that decree language can work, but, <br />legislative clarification is also being pursued. Staff believes we can successfully deal <br />with this issue in either way at this time and thus we do not need to solve this issue prior <br />to filing. <br />Is the amount acceptable? There appears to be consensus that a 72,000 acre foot <br />modifiable portion on an annual basis is adequate in addition to the 52,000 acre foot <br />Carve Out. Staff recommends including a 72,000 acre foot modifiable portion in the <br />Recovery Flow Water Right application. <br />Should the monthly distribution be defined before or after filing? Staff recommends <br />that the monthly distribution of the modifiable portion of the Recovery Flow Water Right <br />be defined after filing. The monthly distribution of the modifiable portion should be <br />negotiated during water court proceedings as a number of interests want to consulted on <br />this matter. Water users have indicated that that the concept of making a portion of the <br />recovery right modifiable is acceptable. but, they do not favor a monthly distribution of <br />it. We plan to review this issue at the December 13, 1995 meeting. <br />Criteria for Modifvine: the Recoverv J<'low Water Rie:ht: <br />Should the modifications be automatic? Staff recommends that modifications not be <br />automatic and both water users and environmental interests appear to agree on this <br />issue. <br />Should the Criteria address compact development issues only or should they <br />include endangered fish recovery factors as well? Staff recommends that both <br />compact and eruiangered fish recovery factors be considered when making <br />modifications. <br />Are the two provisions contained in the proposed decree enough? Staff recommends <br />that for filing purposes the two criteria outlined in the proposed application are enough, <br />although further definition may be considered during water court proceedings. <br />What process should the CWCB follow in considering modification requests? The <br />process that the Board shouldfollow when consideringfuture modifications of the <br />Recovery Flow Water Right needsfurtherdiscussion and should be considered an <br />administrative matter to be negotiated during water court proceedings. <br /> <br />5. <br /> <br />2 <br />