Laserfiche WebLink
<br />, <br /> <br />> <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />OJ, ti.", p" r <br />~',.. ~ \;- ,~'.". <br />L't.."~~' <br /> <br />the persons and groups involved in those meetings. These guide- <br /> <br />203 <br /> <br />lines have been reordered but basically kept in tact in the regu- 205 <br /> <br />lations. These regulations mainly address questions concerning 206 <br /> <br />stacking, limitations on acquisitions that have a significant 207 <br /> <br />negative effect on certain water rights and operational limits on 208 <br /> <br />acquired conditional rights once changed to absolute instream <br /> <br />flow uses. 209 <br /> <br />The stacking question was resolved so as to prohibit the Board 212 <br /> <br />from combining water from numerous Board controlled sources if to 213 <br /> <br />do so would exceed the amount of water necessary to protect the 214 <br /> <br />natural environment to a reasonable degree. This is particularly 215 <br /> <br />important when the Board has an existing junior instream flow de- 216 <br /> <br />cree for a stream reach and then acquires a senior conditional <br /> <br />water right on the same stream reach. The Board refused to adopt <br /> <br />217 <br /> <br />suggested alternatives which would have forced the Board to sub- 219 <br /> <br />ordinate or abandon all or parts of the water rights under its 220 <br /> <br />control in order to achieve this anti-stacking goal. The Board 221 <br /> <br />instead opted for language allowing the Board to operate acquired <br /> <br />conditional rights in combination with others to achieve the <br /> <br />223 <br /> <br />anti-stacking goal. <br /> <br />The significant negative effects question is actually a two <br /> <br />226 <br /> <br />pronged analysis. The first part selects which rights will be 227 <br /> <br />evaluated for the existence of a significant negative effect <br /> <br />228 <br /> <br />-7- <br /> <br />3 <br />