Laserfiche WebLink
-113- <br /> <br />MR. HOLDER: If they got a half-second foot out of the Colorado River and <br />transport it down here, then they've disturbed the local hydrologic balance. <br />Maybe, favorably, but they've disturbed it more than was necessary. And I <br />think weed have the right to go in, if they were foolish enough to do that. <br />But if they're going to take water out of the creek in one place and, through <br />augmentation, put it bads in the creek in another, and there is no users in <br />between, then hydrologic balance hasn't been disturbed. <br />MR. BARRY: I guess -- Davis, I disagree with your initial statement. I <br />think that minimized disturbance of the hydrologic balance means as a result <br />of mining activity. Not as a result of water activity. And I think maybe if <br />you disturb the hydrologic balance by a trans-basin diversion, that ain't our <br />business. <br />MR. HOLDER: If they use two cfs out of an existing hydrologic regime <br />and don't put it back, they disturb the hydrologic balance. <br />MR. BARRY: But not as a result of mining operations. It's a result of <br />trans-basin diversion. <br />MR. HOLDER: They wouldn't be doing it if it weren't a mine.. <br />MR. BARRY: Well, I -- but, you see, I think the fact that they're doing <br />it is the result of a water transfer arrangement somewhere else means it's a <br />State Engineer's job, and that's why -- that's -- for me -- is the explanation <br />why we've never gone into depth into this. Because we can't do anything with <br />the information once we get it. <br />MR. JOUFLAS: Luke? <br />MR. DANIEL SON: I guess, I'd say -- Chips, I do I do think ihat we may be <br />able to do something about it in this sense. That if the mining operation <br />• itself is going to cause some loss of water in the system, then the fact that, <br />