Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Jencsok <br /> <br />Sheftel <br /> <br />Jencsok <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />The Board has never really addressed that issue. <br />From the very beginning it was sort of an <br />understanding that the Board has tremendous amount of <br />leeway in determining what section of the natural <br />environment to a reasonable degree meant. I was <br />always-the staff's understanding that the Board has <br />meant that under this language we could appropriate <br />or acquire water or water rights for recovery of the <br />fish. The issue that concerns me is that the statute <br />requires that we acquire or appropriate the minimum <br />amount, that is the part we have a problem with at <br />this time, we don't know what to do about this and <br />basically that is the issue of concern. <br /> <br />Gene if method two were taken which is to require <br />refinement so that you could determine what the <br />minimum-what is the down side as far as water <br />development goes, if this is a decision that is made <br />is there a project out there that is hanging out <br />because we're not going ahead and immediately <br />appropriating something, I didn't know what the <br />consequences were practically of our decision. <br /> <br />There is no project out there immediately that would <br />require a non jeopardy opinion and that is the Upper <br />Basin. I think however in-my personal feeling is <br />that we have sort of committed to making sufficient <br />progress. I feel that it wouldn't be quite right to <br />push things off until we are out to the deadline and <br />then try to recover all the lost ground that we have <br />over the years. I think if we took a reasonable and <br />prudent process that I think would protect both the <br />water users from the Board acquiring more than is <br />needed and also would provide an intent of our good <br />intentions to proceed with the-and have some <br /> <br />9 <br />