Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Ray Wright: <br /> <br />David Harrison: <br /> <br />Ray Wright: <br /> <br />David Harrison: <br /> <br />Jim Lochhead: <br /> <br />David Harrison: <br /> <br />Jim Lochhead: <br /> <br />David Harrison: <br /> <br />Patricia Wells: <br /> <br />David Harrison: <br /> <br />Eric Kuhn: <br /> <br />David Harrison: <br /> <br />.' <br /> <br />.- <br /> <br />it's just not there. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />David? See, it was my thought that when we went from the final notice <br />numbers, 325 in May to 1200, that that was quite ajump, and that we have <br />a month there of high flows...and <br /> <br />I see...this goes more toward the summer base flows. <br /> <br />Yes, we didn't want to get the base flow numbers so high during the <br />runoff months that it pegged into the development opportunity there. <br /> <br />OK, I understand that. Well, where we're heading then should still work. <br />The motion doesn't probably need this qualifier in it, we can express our <br />intent to staff to take a further look at that, to make sure that the base flow <br />that's included here, in the summertime particularly, the runoff period <br />particularly, does not preclude the development allowance from being <br />achievable as a practical matter (?). And if it does, then during...the case <br />is pending, that we can reduce the claim downward in order to <br />accommodate it. Jim? <br /> <br />CanI suggest or put on the table that we not include that caveat in this <br />motion, and if we want to direct staff to bring it back or whatever, we do <br />that, but that we have a firm motion on specific amounts of water. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />That's what we just... <br /> <br />Well, it has to be acceptable to the mover and the second. <br /> <br />Is it acceptable to the mover? <br /> <br />It is. <br /> <br />Is it acceptable to the second? <br /> <br />It is. <br /> <br />Good. I'm glad I didn't just assume that. Let me enlarge one notch. We <br />still have our statutory fmdings to make. They're implicit in the motion, <br />they're included in all the information before us. I think we need to focus <br />on those and be sure that we have made the statutory fmdings that are <br />required in context of this right. Usually the staff recommendation has <br />them spelled out, but I don't see that they're here...where's...point to <br />them... <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Minutes of December 13, 1995 Special CWCB Meeting . <br />