Laserfiche WebLink
<br />potential moves. There is no way to do that. <br /> <br />Mr. Vandemoer: The only thing I would say. if you have a 1886 right. <br />I think you ought to have the permission to take the 86 right that you <br />own and move it on the river. I think you should be able to do that. <br /> <br />Mr. Moses: You still do that if it doesn't affect the minimum stream <br />flow. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Mr. Vandemoer: Yes. but if it does, you can't. <br /> <br />Mr. Sparks: There is no vested right to move water. The decree grants <br />you a certain right. Nothing that we do can interfere with that right. <br />There is a statutory right to move a water right, but it is subject <br />only to O1..1r decree, but to all other decrees on the stream. The condi- <br />tion is that you can't injure other appropriators. So it is not just <br />us. every other appropriator has the same right that we do. <br /> <br />Mr. Stapleton: Tom. that is just why I think that the deferment of <br />these other areas is proper until we have had a chance to hear from <br />other appropriators. <br /> <br />Mr. Ten Eyck: I don't quarrel with that deferment. Ben. We are ha~ing <br />ourselves up on an unnecessary concern. I agree with Larry. you can t <br />by getting an 1886 right have the right to do anything you want with it <br />forever and ever into the future. whatever that might be. We don't <br />have that kind of a law. <br /> <br />Mr. Stapleton: All right. before we have a vote on the motion. would <br />you like to speak? If you will identify yourself. <br /> <br />Mr. Mulvaney: Bob Mulvaney with the Forest Service. You mentioned <br />a little wh11e ago the comparability of the fish flow claims of your <br />board, .of the wildlife division. and ours. As far as fish flows go. <br />yes, they are very comparable. But the claims which we are involved <br />with in court are not restricted to fish flows. They are all the pur~ <br />poses of the reserved lands that forests were created for. So the <br />ultimate number of these claims may not be in any way comparable to <br />the number you are dealing with because they are just fish. We are <br />talking about the whole spectrum of them. <br /> <br />Mr. Sparks: Our law is not that restrictive either. I think we may <br />have perhaps fallen into a bad habit. Our law says: "for the reason- <br />able protection of the environment." In general, these minimum stream <br />flows will accomplish that purpose, but not always. So there may be I <br />cases. as Mr. Barrows has already mentioned, where we are not really <br />concerned about fish life. hut other types of wildlife also. Our law <br />is broader than simply fish flows. <br /> <br />Mr. Mulvaney: I recognize that, but we are for instance into timber <br />management, range management, water for fires, the maintenance of the <br />entire ecosystem, which you folks are in at times and other times you <br />are going to be talking strictly about fish. But we 1, don't think will <br />ever be talking strictly about fish. I think the times that the numbers <br /> <br />-41- <br />