Laserfiche WebLink
<br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />convinced first before we go into water court, before <br />we recommend an appropriation to the Board we need to <br />be convinced that in fact this is the best method <br />that we can and at this time we are not <br />convinced of that. Service like to see a recovery <br />program, like to sufficient progress made in the <br />upper basin recovery program and they would like the <br />staff to present its instream flow recommendations <br />for the Board the conditions for the Board's action <br />so that we can go into water court and file for water <br />rights, however, how much how <br />much are we willing to settle for and <br />how do we proceed. I have listed several options in <br />the table at the end of the memorandum that <br />what we potentially could do. Maybe I could run <br />quickly through them and just basically describe the <br />options. One option would be for the Board to accept <br />the flow recommendations based on the data that we <br />have prepared so far. That is essentially a <br />data and observations and professional judgment by <br />our biologist. It is our first refinement. We've <br />took that information presented to the Board, if the <br />Board approve that we could go into water court with <br />that file and appropriation and take our chance on <br />either being able to defend it or not to defend it. <br />Another option would be to require refinements to <br />assist in flow recommendations which would mean that <br />the Service that participating agencies in the <br />recovery program and the water users other <br />biologists would need to look for additional <br />methodology provided to quantify the flow needs of <br />the fish. Something more than an analytical method <br />that we could use and that we would be more <br />comfortable with in presenting to you and eventually <br />the water court. Another approach would be to say <br /> <br />6 <br />