Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Kuhn: <br /> <br />Wells: <br /> <br />Harrison: <br /> <br />Kuhn: <br /> <br />Harrison: <br /> <br />Jencsok: <br /> <br />Kuhn: <br /> <br />Harrison: <br /> <br />Evans: <br /> <br />Harrison: <br /> <br />set of monthly carve out numbers. <br /> <br />The monthly numbers would then control. <br /> <br />Within the 52 <br /> <br />The monthly numbers would then control. We wouldn't reach 52 because the <br />compact chopped it off, but we also wouldn't reach beyond the carveout numbers <br />specified in this water right. <br /> <br />For each month, right. <br /> <br />All right, I understand. Ah, other questions? Gene? <br /> <br />(Inaudible) Terms and conditions would replace the triggers? <br /> <br />The trigger might be a part of the terms and conditions, OK. <br /> <br />Whether its terms and conditions, table value, actual counting, or some blend of <br />those things is to be worked out under appropriate terns and conditions. OK other <br />questions? Peter? <br /> <br />I have a thought...the staff put together recommendations to stimulation discussion <br />based upon capped amounts of water, and we smoked everybody out that objected <br />to that approach. As we go toward the next step, it might be that...proposing the <br />alternative approach, going for all the unappropriated water might serve the other <br />function of letting YOU...you ask the question, who is going to find the other <br />approach politically unacceptable. If we go back to the approach of having staff <br />bring you a bunch of alternatives, you're not going to find that out. And the other <br />thing that I'm thinking is, if we go to final notice, proposing this other approach, <br />it would be for presumably a larger amount of water which you could then reduce <br />if you decided to go the cap approach. <br /> <br />Yes, Peter, I hear you, but we don't need to modify the motion to get there, <br />because it has the words all available in it on one branch of the alternative, that <br />will smoke them out. I would say this, I would like to see if at all possible, that <br />we decide this. This alternative does not necessarily have to go forward in water <br />court. I suspect that some of the terms and conditions on exactly defining the <br />administration of the carve out will probably have to go to water court and wait <br />and see and have the attorneys in and make stipulations. If we can decide that, <br />I think we should, and so I think we need to think about who we should be talking <br />to in the meantime, if the concern is one of legislative action, we should be talking <br />to the legislators. We will be talking with the Water Congress next week, and you <br />ought to lay it on the table, it seems to be one of the key issues. Are there any <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />Minutes of October 10, 1995 Special CWCB Meeting <br />