BOARD01477

• Board Meeting Date: 2/5/1969
• Description: Agenda or Table of Contents, Minutes, Memos
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Meeting

that was where the engineering work was
directed. However, we are hopeful that
many of these other concepts, and some of
these other ideas, some of them obviously
are not saleable,with certain modifications
are also badly needed if we are going to
give an efficient control, operation and
administration to the waters of the state.

I

There are many physical problems, physi-
cal solutions, that are not covered in either
Senate Bill 81 or in this revised draft.
However, I certainly concur that we have got
to focus on Senate Bill 81 or amendments
thereto in line with the concensus that was
arrived at the other day in the Governor's
office. It is just a question of, in many
instances, what is saleable to the people at
this time. There are certain features in
these bills that I do not think are saleable
at all. I'll give you one illustration. I
don't think the water users of the state are
ready and willing to pay a uniform water
charge. I think they want that to be
absorbed out of the general fund. At least,
that seems to be the majority feeling.

I think some things in this Water Board
draft, as I stated at the last meeting, are
improvements upon Senate Bill 81. There is
very little conflict between this and Senate
Bill 81. In many instances Senate Bill 81
does a more comprehensive job even though in
certain limited areas this draft spells out
the details better, in my opinion, than does
Senate Bill 81. But everybody is in accord,
as far as I have been able to ascertain, that
we must administer our rivers on a basin-wide
concept. We are one of the few states that
doesn't adjudicate rivers on the basis of an
entire river although from a practical stand-
point that's the way it is administered today
because the case law which holds that if you
are administering within a water district,
you administer the decrees of the district

I