Laserfiche WebLink
<br />to be reviewed, I think that direction sheu1d be given. I've only <br />sat on the board for a year, but each time a stream comes up, the <br />one.c~laint is'that we've left out some tributaries. We, as a board, <br />when it s approved have left eut one or two ethers, and there's no <br />understanding why that's dene. If we want.it dene systematically, <br />then I think the law obligates us to. say how we want it dene. <br /> <br />MR. SHERMAN: Let me just add to that. At each of these meetings we've <br />had the same thing gene over and over and over. The Division ef <br />Wildlife comes in,'thei explain their precedures, they explain what <br />they are doing, and it s easy to. take petshots at them. But I don!t <br />think this board has ceme tIp with an affirmative, positive response to. <br />what we would like to se~ them do. It seems to me before we:just <br />criticize them in whe1esa1e fashion, if we've got different ideas er <br />better'ideas, then I think it's incumbent upon us to sit down with them <br />and discuss it. I think that we've been semewhat unfair to. the Divisien <br />and' to the staff of the beard. They have made an henest effort to <br />understand these things. They bring that back to. us each menth or each <br />meeting, and yet we centinuous1y criticize them. I think we ought to. <br />ceme up with a pesitive alternative if we don't like what they're <br />doing. <br /> <br />MR. BROWNELL: What de yeu recommend we de then? <br /> <br />MR. SHERMAN: Well, I'm net as dissatisfied as Mr. Kreeger is. I think <br />that they're trying to go about this in the best way they can. ,But if <br />there are'better ideas or better suggestiens that we have, I think we <br />ought to get them eut and let them consider it. Perhaps we eught to. set <br />up a subcommittee of this board to werk with the Division ef Wildlife <br />and fetmulate a better program if we're net satisfied. ' <br /> <br />MR. BROWNELL: I think that's a geed idea. <br /> <br />MR. SPARKS: We've explained this repeatedly before. We den' t do these <br />things in the dark. We prepare'a hydregraphic chart en the'best infer- <br />mation that's available to. us for all of these streams. We review that <br />hydregraphic chart and 10ek at the highs and lows ef the stream. We <br />den't know of any ether method available to medern science.te do this <br />job. That's the best we can de. <br /> <br />The preblem is that everyone is for minimum stream flows, except for <br />their area. We are advised to make apprepriations somewhere else. We <br />can't do that. No matter which way we turn, the peeple in that area <br />sar, "De this in another area." .We're like a deg chasing its tail. I <br />It s up to the board, whether we want to de these er not. When it is <br />pointed eut we are in errer, we'll attempt to make corrections. We've <br />dene the. best we can. This is the second time we've brought this back <br />to the board. We have no. further recemmendatiens to make. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />MR. BROWNELL: Back. to Mr. Sherman's comment. I at various times and <br />at various board meetings, this board meeting and the Celerade River <br />Censervancy Board, I have heard the Game and Fish Department, the <br />Division ef Wildlife, say we need X number ef feet to maintain the <br /> <br />-48- <br />