Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Harrison: <br /> <br /> <br />Wright: <br /> <br />Harrison: <br /> <br />Wright: <br /> <br />Harrison: <br /> <br />Wells: <br /> <br />Harrison: <br /> <br />Kuhn: <br /> <br />Harrison: <br /> <br />John <br /> <br />Harrison: <br /> <br />All right, I would entertain a motion on base flow. Who want's to take a shot? <br /> <br />would move we direct the staff to proceed with fmal notice on base flow in the <br />amounts similar to those shown...recommended to us in their staff memo, but <br />giving the staff the flexibility to address the issues in winter months and to address <br />the month of july. I would further in the motion would be a direction to the staff <br />to make it clear in the appropriation that we would not exercise the call nor take <br />formal statements of opposition against rights until there is an acceptable <br />augmentation source or plan available for future appropriators. <br /> <br />If we do not have a timely source of augmentation water appear, are we setting <br />ourselves up for dangers of getting behind in our appropriation, having people de <br />facto senior to us, with some relatively major filings that might further muddy the <br />water. <br /> <br />I think they file subject to notice of what we file. We're out there, even if we say <br />we're not going to start forcing this for a couple of years until we get the thing <br />going, we're still out there. I mean, suppose we had a conditional decree...we're <br />not going to start calling until its built. <br /> <br />That's why I asked the lawyers. <br /> <br />Well, you only got an answer from one lawyer, try Jennifer you'll get a different <br />answer. <br /> <br />I second the motion. <br /> <br />Thanks. Is the motion complete? OK. So let me understand this. It is moved <br />that we proceed to final notice on the base flow, using numbers similar to those <br />proposed by staff, but asking them to address further the July numbers and the <br />winter months, that the...did you say this?..that the base flow would not be <br />subordinated but that we would initially not exercise the call or file a statement <br />of opposition until an acceptable augmentation source was available. <br /> <br />Yes. <br /> <br />Any comments, questions about the motion, I'll entertain any public comment <br />about this motion, Yes, John? <br /> <br />(Inaudible) <br /> <br />What I gathered about that, because I whispered the same thing to Eric, hey, <br />Stagecoach is there, but I guess that there's a certain amount of institutional work <br />necessary to put it into place to get it useable. It might not take much I don't <br /> <br />Minutes of October 10, 1995 Special CWCB Meeting <br />