Laserfiche WebLink
<br />-116- <br />MR. HALEPASKA: What you're talking about is moving water that's <br />currently being used to irrigate ground from one location to another through <br />the Court action and augmentation plan. It will be Battle Mountain's <br />esponsibility to prove, by a computer models or whatever else is required by <br />the Court or by the State Engineer, to show that the movement of that water <br />from one place to another by either moving it up a water shed or by physically <br />piping it leaves intact the other rights. <br />MR. DANIELSON: I guess my '-- I'm not, again not talking about rights, <br />but physically, if you're talking about something on the order of half a cfs, <br />are there places you can remove a half cfs from the system without creating <br />unacceptable environmental consequences? <br />MR. HALEPASKA: Yes. <br />MR. JOUFLAS: Dean? While they're saying something, I want you all to <br />notice phenomenon that's just like the Northern Lights. We've goat four <br />lawyers say -- talking; we've got about six opinions. About the same thing. <br />Yeah, I know. I though it was only five, but there's six now. Okay, Dean, go <br />ahead. <br />MR. MASSEY: No, that's fine. I'm finished with my response. <br />MR. JOUFLAS: Your finished, okay. <br />MR. BANTA: Let me just add that I guess were we -- you know, how we <br />approached to same degree the water rights issues. When we reviewed the <br />application, and discussed it with the Company, one of the questions had to do <br />with minimizing the disturbance of the hydrologic balance. One of the reasons <br />that we talked about a slurry wall and discussed the aquifer that is above -- <br />above the west pit that would seep into the pit itself was to insure that the <br />water supply would be -- would not be disrupted and that was, you know, about <br />the extent of how we looked at the insurance that the water suppl;r would be <br />