►
From YouTube: Select Water Meeting, May 12, 2022 - PM
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
But
what
I've
done
is
I've
geared
a
presentation
that
I've
somewhat
dusted
off
and
my
intent
was
to
give
this
to
the
water
development
commission
as
well,
and
to
kind
of
update
them
on
some
of
the
things
that
you
guys
probably
already
know,
but
I'll
go
ahead
and
go
through
it.
I
was
going
to
start
with
some
of
the
legislation
that
was
passed.
A
That
impacts
our
agency
and
the
first
one
I'll
talk
about
is
our
budget
legislature
was
kind
enough
to
reinstate
the
assistant
state
engineer
and
we
have
not
started
advertising
for
that.
Yet
I
just
have
not
had
time
to
to
work
on
that
yet,
and
that
will
be
that
appropriation
is
available
in
july
at
the
start
of
the
new
biennium,
and
then
the
other
position
was
a
position
in
the
green
river
basin
to
help
us
with
the
colorado
river
and
that
position
the
duties
of
that
position
are
anticipated.
A
Due
of
that
position
have
evolved,
since
it
was
first
introduced
about
a
year
ago,
probably
from
now,
when
that
concept
came
up
to
what
it
is
ultimately
now
and
we're
meeting
internally
next
week
to
develop
kind
of
what
we
think
that
position
should
be-
and
I
say
that,
because
we're
including
several
of
my
divisions,
maybe
all
of
my
divisions
and
trying
to
craft
what
that
position
is
and
how
best,
what?
A
What
do
we
need
in
the
colorado
river
basin,
the
green
river
basin,
to
help
us
with
what's
going
on
over
there
and
the
way
I
view
it
right
now.
Is
it's
going
to
be
probably
more
of
a
technical
type
of
a
person
that
can
help
us
with
some
of
the
modeling
understands
modeling
hydrology,
as
well
as
consumptive
use,
how
we
get
that
kind
of
heavy
on
the
data
side
and
then
the
manipulation
of
that
data
to
kind
of
help
us
out.
A
So
that
would
be
the
topic
that
I
take
to
my
meeting
next
week
is
my
vision
and
then
we'll
let
our
superintendent
and
our
other
division
heads
kind
of
inform
what
that'll
be
and
then,
hopefully,
within
the
next
couple
of
weeks,
we'll
have
a
applica
or
a
an
offering
out
for
people
to
apply.
So
that's
where
we
stand
on
those
two
positions:
the
other
legislation,
the
first
one
I'll
talk
about
was
house
bill.
Two.
This
was
the
disposition
of
water
rights.
A
Representative
simpson
ran
that
through
for
the
most
part,
but
it
deals
with
essentially
orphaned
water
rights,
in
particular
in
areas
where
subdivision
occurs,
and
the
subdivision
occurs
where
water
rights
were
allotted,
and
how
do
we
handle
with
how
to
handle
that
so
that
the
main
focus
was
not
to
get
rid
of
our
old
senior
water
rights
and
let
them
go
away,
and
so
this
this
bill
allows
four
methods
of
disposing
or
changing
or
moving
those
water
rights,
and
it's
the
topic
of
your
guys's
interim
topic
as
well
on
the
assessments
when,
when
those
occur,
when
that
situation
occurs.
A
A
It
requires
that
when
a
federal
agency
applies
for
a
water
right
on
an
allotment
parcel
that
they
need
to
have
the
permittee
on
that,
basically
helps
ensure
that
the
the
owner,
whether
it
be
the
forest
service
blm,
the
federal
agency,
can't
just
pull
that
water
right
out
without
impact
and
impact
that
permittee
house
bill
36
groundwater
control
areas.
A
I'll
give
you
a
quick
update
on
some
of
the
river
basins,
the
north
platte
basin,
as
you
guys
all
know,
not
a
great
year
for
water
in
wyoming.
A
A
Like
thousands
of
acre
feet
out
of
1.1
million,
so
we
analyzed
that
and
we
verified
it,
but
we
did
not
warrant
it.
We
we
felt
that,
or
we
found
that
one
of
the
numbers
used
in
our
calculation
was
used
was
the
wrong
number
and
then
the
other
thing
that
we
evaluated
was
our
restriction
on
the
prell
dam
and
what
amount
of
water
that
that
restriction
would
provide
to
the
system
water
and
with
those
two
corrections
that
put
us
over
the
1.1
million.
A
A
A
It
is
below
the
1.1
million,
and
so
it's
called
an
allocation
year,
but
the
the
parameters
switch
based
on
base
through
the
decree
so
rather
than
calling
rights
off,
we
are
allowed
up
to
6600
cfs
a
diversions
in
every
two
week
period
and
historically,
we
have
not
exceeded
that.
So
really.
What
that
means
very
generally
is
that
we
it's
not
a
huge
impact
to
our
water
users
for
the
remainder
of
the
summer.
Chris,
am
I
saying
anything
wrong?
A
Okay,
I
want
to
make
sure
that
I'm
understanding
correctly.
So
that's
where
we
are
in
the
north
platte
I'll
shift
over
to
the
yellowstone
basin.
A
In
april,
we
received
a
call
from
montana
to
fill
tung
river
reservoir,
and
that
has
a
priority
date
of
1950.,
and
so
that
means
that
any
post,
1950
water
right
in
wyoming
is
called
off.
The
the
call
from
montana
did
allow
us
to
continue
to
store
post
1950
storage
rights
in
the
basin.
A
A
The
reason
we
have
to
do
that,
then,
is
if
tongue
river
reservoir
does
not
fill
then
any
of
that
post,
1950
stored
water
that
occurred
after
after
april
first
would
have
to
be
released
to
satisfy
that
call,
and
then
I
believe
it
was
monday
of
this
week
that
call
was
lifted.
A
So
in
that
time,
between
april
1st
and
may
5th,
there
were
some
diversions
that
would
like
to
have
turned
on.
In
that
time
they
weren't
allowed
to.
We
tagged
all
the
head
gates
and
did
not
allow
them,
but,
as
of
may
5th
monday,
I
issued
a
press
release
and
notification
to
our
hydrographers
that
the
call
is
lifted
and
those
diversions
can
turn
on
and
the
amount
of
water
that
we
were
accounting
for
that
they
can
be
used.
However,
they
choose
to
use
that
now,
so
that
is
not
subject
to
the
call
anymore.
A
I
will
say
that
that
montana
can
still
and
they
reserve
the
right
to
make
a
call
in
future
if
they
believe
the
tongue
river
will
not
fill,
but
all
the
information
we
see
today.
Both
states
believe
that
it
will
fill
hydrology
improved
almost
immediately
after
they
made
the
call.
We
got
some
significant
precipitation
events
in
the
basin
and
really
improved
the
hydrology
which
led
to
them
lifting
the
call
so
we're
in
better
shape
in
that
I'll
go
to
the
snake
river.
We
are
hearing
the
potential
that
both
jackson,
lake
and
palisades
could
be.
A
A
A
That
could
change
depending
on
the
hydrology,
but
that
was
what
we
had
heard
as
as
of
a
month
and
a
half
ago,
I
believe,
switching
to
the
colorado
river
a
lot
of
work
going
on
with
that.
I
think
you
heard
a
lot
of
discussion
on
that
yesterday.
A
A
A
We
made
recommendations
to
the
bureau
of
reclamation,
they
accepted
the
recommendations
and
they
are
going
to
release
500
000
acre
feet
out
of
flaming
gorge
reservoir,
starting
in
may.
Wouldn't
that
start
may
5th,
through
the
beginning
of
april
of
next
year
that
500
000
will
be
released
as
part
of
that
the
seven
basins,
the
upper
division
and
the
lower
division
also
agreed
to
a
proposal
from
the
lower
basin
to
withhold
480
000
acre
feet
of
release
from
lake
powell
to
lake
mead.
A
This
is
a
historic
low
elevation
in
lake
powell
and
there's
some
uncertainty
or
the
no
tests
have
been
made
on
how
the
plumbing
of
that
reservoir
will
work
if
it
doesn't
go
through
the
hydropower.
So
there
there's
a
big
need
to
keep
it
going
through.
The
hydropower
both
for
infrastructure,
as
well
as
the
power
generation
which
provides
power
to
the
western
states
and
wyoming,
does
receive
quite
a
bit
of
power
from
lake
powell
so
that
that
those
agreements
have
been
agreed
to
by
the
bureau
and
they
are
being
implemented
as
we
speak.
B
Senator
school,
mr
chairman,
mr
gephardt,
the
500
000,
that's
federal
water,
correct,
not
wyoming,
water.
A
That
that
is
correct,
wyoming
has
no
contracts
in
flaming
gorge.
In
fact,
flaming
gorge
has
very
little
contracted
use
for
that
water
anyhow.
So
it
really
is
system
water,
but
wyoming
does
not
have
any
contract
storage
out
of
flaming
gorge.
Our
our
biggest
impact
is
probably
to
recreation,
and
we
analyze
what
these
releases
will
will
do
to
the
elevation,
and
we
believe
that
it
will
lower
it
about
10
feet
from
where
it
is
today.
So
by
the
time
that
500
000
acre
feet
leaves
it.
A
In
wyoming,
we
don't
believe
that
the
marine
there's
only
one
marina,
that
in
wyoming
the
buckmore
marina,
and
we
do
not
believe
that
the
boat
ramp
will
be
dried,
but
they
are
making
some
plans
for
mitigation
for
their
their
marina
to
keep
moving
it
down.
As
the
reservoir
drops
and
also
they're
they're,
mitigating
their
potable
water
use,
they
pull
their
potable
water
use
out
of
the
lake,
so
they're
they're
doing
plant.
They
have
plans
in
place
to
mitigate
for
that
as
well.
B
A
No-
and
I
might
bring
chris
up
to
help
with
this,
but
so
we
are,
we
are
allotted
what
we
beneficially
use.
So
if
we
don't
have
beneficial
use,
we
have
no
right
to
that
water.
A
So
we
have
an
allocation
through
the
agreement
with
the
upper
basin,
so
we
get
14
of
the
available
water
in
any
given
year,
and
so,
if
we
don't
use
our
14
percent,
then
it
becomes
system
water
where
we
do
benefit
from.
That,
though,
is
it
does
go
to
lake
powell
and
it
does
pass
lee's
ferry
lease
ferry
is
our
trigger
for
the
upper
basin
and
it-
and
we
have
to
have
a
part
of
the
compact.
A
Our
our
allocation
under
the
compact
is
that,
on
average,
over
10
years,
we
have
to
have
75
million
acre
feet
over
lee's
ferry
over
that
10
10
year
period,
so
that
averages
to
seven
and
a
half
million,
so
any
water
that
we
don't
use,
it
can
be
picked
up
as
system
water,
but
anything
that's
not
used
and
ends
up
in
powell
helps
the
upper
basin
by
it
passing
lee's
ferry
and
to
date
we
were
at
88
and
a
half
million
acre
feet
over
the
previous
10-year
period.
So
mr.
B
Chairman,
I
hate
to
keep
running
so
you're
bulking
us
in
with
all
the
upper
base,
and
yet
it's
wyoming
water,
and
I
I'm
a
little
bit
burr
under
my
saddle
on
it,
and
so
you
telling
me
that
we
can
have
users
have
current
priority
dates
to
pick
up
that
piece
of
water
up
there,
because
that's
that's
really.
What
you're
indicating
to
me
is:
that's
our
water.
So
can
someone
can
someone
show
up
and
and
apply
to
get.
A
A
Director
and
then,
mr
chairman,
the
last
of
my
update,
was
just
to
inform
you,
you
guys
know,
but
the
inform
the
commission
of
some
of
the
internet
topics
that
our
office
will
be
involved
with
select
water
priority
number
two
is
the
pilot
water
conservation
program.
Now
we
discussed
that
yesterday
with
select
water.
A
A
The
number
four
priority
was
water
rights
issue
associated
with
the
development
of
lands
within
an
irrigation
district
that
was
discussed
yesterday,
as
well
as
number
five,
the
groundwater
interference
with
surface
water
and
prior
appropriation
doctrine
and
then
number
six
is
the
review
of
the
wyoming
supreme
court
case
related
to
the
conveyance
of
water
across
property.
I
believe
we'll
be
discussing
that
this
afternoon
and
your
number
seven
priority
is
reservoir.
One
fill
requirement
that
will
be
discussed
this
afternoon
as
well.
C
D
That
was
a
previously
on
one
parcel,
and
now
it's
got
10
different
land
owners,
and
so
this
document
that
the
state
engineers
put
together,
it
just
talks
about
the
legal
access
aspect
relating
to
ditch
rights
and
easements.
Everybody
has
a
copy
of
that.
It's
also
on
the
web
page.
If,
for
the
meeting
materials,
we
looked
at
this
a
couple
years
ago
and
abigail
did
some
preliminary
discussions
and
I've
had
some
discussions
with
some
a
couple
of
water
attorneys
also,
but
we
have
the
same
issue.
It's
just
now.
D
D
We
need
to
address
the
water
when
it
goes
across
those
lands
that
they're
subdivided,
and
I
guess
that's
what
I
really
want
to
take
a
look
at
here
and,
mr
chairman,
I
don't
know
if
we
want
to
walk
all
the
way
through
this,
this
memo
of
the
state
engineers
office,
but
if
we
could
call
that
up,
there's
three
specific
provisions
in
this
document
that
I
think
are
very
pertinent
to
this
discussion.
What
we
had
with
house
bill
2
and
the
change
of
the
statutes
relating
to
that
associated
with
subdivision.
D
Mr
chairman,
there's
another
issue
associated
with
these:
ditch
easement
rights
that
comes
up
periodically
that
we're
starting
to
see
is,
as
you
get
new
absentee
owners,
new
owners
that
are
not
familiar
with
irrigation.
Moving
into
the
state
and
oftentimes
they'll
buy
a
piece
of
ground
and
it'll
have
a
ditch
across
it,
and
and
the
automatic
assumption
is
as
well
it's
their
property
they
own
that
ditch
and
they
can
do
whatever
they
want
with
it.
And
yet
the
water
right
holder,
oftentimes,
may
want
to
go.
D
Do
some
maintenance
on
that
ditch
or
he
may
want
to
participate
in
different
farm
bill
programs
through
the
nrcs
to
do
some,
ditch
lining
piping,
any
improvements
to
that
ditch
and
it
becomes
a
legal
battle
and
the
way
it's
currently
structured.
We
have
a
number
of
ag
opinions
associated
with
that
at
least
one
supreme
court
ruling
associated
with
with
the
maintenance
and
access
and
who
owns
it,
and
what
the
new
land
owner
can
do
or
can't
do
with
the
ditch.
D
The
problem
that
we
run
into
is
we
get
subdivisions
and
new
land
owners
is
right.
Now
the
only
remedy
is
to
go
to
court,
and
yet
we
have
a
preponderance
of
legal
opinions
from
the
attorney
general's
office
and
supreme
court
rulings
that
lays
out
what
those
remedies
are,
and
so
what
I
would
like
to
do
is
maybe
look
at
codifying
in
statutes
at
least
three
provisions
within
this
document
that
addresses
those
issues.
D
C
D
So
the
one
that
that
I'd
like
us
to
focus
on
is
question
number
four,
and
this
gets
to
the
case
where
you
have
a
a
new
landowner,
comes
in
or
any
land
owner
that
buys
a
new
piece
of
ground
and
there's
a
ditch
across
it.
D
And
it
goes
on.
I'm
not
going
to
read
that
to
everybody
here.
But
what
I
would
like
to
do
is
direct
staff,
mr
chairman,
to
go
in
there
and
look
and
see
how
we
would
codify
this
in
statutes
and
it
has
a
limitation
in
their
10
years,
but
basically
take
that
opinion
and
create
a
statutory
reference,
and
it
would
be
a
reference
based
on
the
presumption
that
there's
an
an
easement
on
that
ground.
D
D
Take
public
comment
on
it
at
that
point
in
time
after
public
comment,
then
send
it
down
the
road
for
further
action
at
our
november
december
meeting
at
this
point
in
time,
mr
chairman,
my
preference
would
be
go
ahead
and
make
that
recommendation
on
this
one.
I
can
do
that
on
all
three
of
these
as
a
global
motion,
or
just
one
at
a
time.
How
would
you
like
to
proceed?
Mr
chairman,.
C
Let's
I'm
with
you
on
question
number
four
that
makes
sense.
Why
don't
you
take
us
through
the
other
two?
If
you
would
send
your
hicks
and
then
we
can
also
get
some
input
from
the
standards
office
and
then
you
can
make
a
motion
after
okay.
D
Mr
chairman,
the
next
one
is,
is
question
number
seven,
it
says
suppose
I
have
acquired
a
ditch
right
by
prescription,
which
is
the
one
that
we
just
talked
about
above
across
neighboring
properties.
What
do
the
statutes
say
about
the
width
of
my
easement?
That
is
how
many
feet
am.
I
allowed
along
each
stitch
to
come
to
go
on
my
neighbor's
property.
This
gets
back
to
the
maintenance
issue
when
you
have
new
owners
on
that
subdivisions
and
all
that
stuff.
D
This
just
basically
goes
in
and
there's
a
if
you
go
on
down
and
you
go
to
the
next
page
on
there
there's
an
attorney
general's
opinion
out
there.
That
basically
says
you
have
a
legal
right
to
maintain
that
dish.
To
the
extent
that
yeah
it's
within
the
what
I
want
to
say
within
your
easement,
but
it
has
to
be
combined
to
the
center
line
of
the
ditch.
Whatever
is
reasonable,
in
other
words,
obviously,
let's
say
the
goshen
canal
that
carries
you,
know
4
500.
D
Second
foot
of
water
is
going
to
take
quite
a
bit
more
of
an
easement
to
do
the
operation
and
maintenance
than
maybe
a
ditch.
That
only
carries
two
cfs,
but
what
I'd
like
to
do
is
have
staff
also
look
at
that
attorney
general's
opinion
and
then
look
at
this
reference
here
and
see
if
we
can
codify
what
that
easement
would
look
like
based
on
the
ag's
opinion
and
then
this
language
in
the
in
this
document.
D
And
again
this
gets
to.
It
is
clear
that
my
neighbor
has
a
right
to
enter
my
property
and
maintain
a
dish.
What
will
happen
if
I
try
to
stop
him
again?
There's
an
ag's
opinion.
This
would
tie
right
in
to
number
seven,
but
those
are
the
three
areas
that
that
I
think
gets
back
to
what
we
tried
to
do
with
house
bill
2
was
address
the
actual
subdivision.
D
How
do
you
go
through
notifications
and
all
that
stuff
now
we're
talking
about?
How
do
you
get
the
water
across
one
of
those
now
we're
dealing
with
conveyance
system,
not
the
actual
irrigated
ground,
but
it's
the
same
issue,
mr
chairman,
so
my
recommendation
and
mr
chairman,
maybe
we
should
have
some
discussion
before
I
make
a
motion,
but
I
would
entertain
any
questions
and
then
maybe
the
state
engineer
would
like
to
weigh
in
on
this
too.
C
C
A
We
have
no
we're
not
empowered
at
all
to
intervene
with
these,
so
this
document
was
prepared
because
of
that
to
help
give
the
answers
that
we
kept
getting,
and
we
just
we
had
to
tell
them
that
we
can't
be
involved,
but
here's
this
do
what
you
need
to
with
this,
because
we're
we're
kind
of
out
of
the
out
of
that.
So
that's
kind
of
where
we
stand
with
the
state
in
years
office.
E
French,
thank
you,
mr
chairman.
Just
one
thing
I'd
mention
in
all
of
this
say
you
have
a
parcel
of
land,
a
farm
and
there's
a
ditch
coming
across
and
it's
subdivided
and
now
you
have
that
ditch
crosses
ten
parcels.
E
E
If
all
those
lots
on
each
side
had
a
gate
over
that
buried,
lateral
or
or
or
that
ditch,
then
they
could
open
gates.
You
know
those
fences
block
them
in
a
sense,
and
everybody
raises
cane.
If
they
take
the
track.
Oh
across
the
fence,
to
you
know
just
build
those
right
through
the
fence.
So
that's
something
everybody
keep
in
mind.
You
know
if
those
lots
over
those
ditches,
buried,
laterals
and
stuff
had
had
a
gate
on
each
side.
E
B
Senator
driscoll,
11
and
18
deal
specifically
with
that.
That
basically
says
I
can't
impede
you
to
do
it.
So
if
they're,
smart,
they'll
put
the
gate
in
otherwise,
you've
got
the
right,
their
fence
impedes
you
and
you
can
go
in
and
cut
the
fence
and
do
what
you
need.
It's
pretty
clear
in
here.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
E
Senator
french
just
follow
up,
I
I
would
agree,
but
as
soon
as
you
go
and
cut
ten
fences
got
the
wire
on
ten
fences.
Then
you're
in
court
you're
you've
got
a
lawyer
up
to
defend
yourself,
hey.
I
have
the
right
to
access
that
and
I
guarantee
you
they'll
they'll,
put
you
in
court
and
then
suddenly
a
year
like
well,
I
have
the
right
to
do
that
and
you've
spent
10
000
or
whatever
on
attorney's
fees.
To
point
that
out,
you
know
you're
correct.
G
G
What
is
what
would
be
your
take
on
that?
If,
if
the,
if
this,
if
the
ditch
was
holding
seven
water
rights
and
a
whole
bunch
of
surface
acre
feet
of
water-
and
I
just
had
one
little
bit,
but
I
want
to
do
something:
how
how
do
you
parse
that
out
to
say
how
much
easement
would
I
be
entitled
to,
because
I
have
to
do
work
on
I'd,
have
to
do
work
on
that
whole?
Ditch?
How
would
you?
How
would
you
see
that
playing
out.
G
Your
question
it
yeah,
mr
chairman,
if
I
can
follow
up
yes,
it
does
and
I
understand
the
others.
I
understand,
and
I
understand
all
three
of
them
where
you're
going
and
I
don't
have
a
problem
with
bill
drafts
and
take
a
look
at
and
get
some
testimony.
I
was
just
kind
of
I
didn't
understand
that
part,
but
not
now
that
you
say
that
that
makes
perfect
sense.
Thank
you.
D
Mr
chairman,
I
I
think
both
the
state
engineer
and
then
the
conversation
with
senator
french
and
driscoll
put
a
fine
point
on
this
is
ultimately
the
estate
engineer
has
no
jurisdiction
whatsoever,
so
the
only
remedy
is
is
as
a
civil
action
is.
Is
you
end
up
in
court,
and
it's
exactly
what
senator
french
just
talked
about
is
because
we
have
no
statutory
guidance
here
and
there's
only
either
attorney
general's
opinion
or
supreme
court
cases.
The
only
remedy
is
to
let
the
court
sort
it
out,
and
so
what
I'm
trying
to
do
is
say.
D
Maybe
the
legislature
should
probably
take
a
look
at
this,
not
that
I
have
anybody
that
practices
in
the
legal
profession.
I
just
don't
like
landowners
suing
each
other
all
the
time
for
something
when
it's
obvious.
What
the
outcome
of
the
case
is
going
to
be
anyway,
that
it's
incumbent
upon
us
to
try
to
simplify
this,
for
everybody
involved
versus
creating
economic
opportunity
for
one
industry
sector
in
the
state
of
wyoming.
C
D
So,
mr
chairman,
I
would
move
that
we
authorize
staff
to
and
I
again
I
would
encourage
staff
to
work
with
the
state
engineers
office
to
tap
into
any
expertise.
They
have,
or
even
the
attorney
general's
office,
to
try
to
craft
a
statute
addressing
these
three
issues
outlined
in
the
memo
number
bullet,
4,
7
and
11,
and
have
a
draft
available
before
our
next
meeting.
Mr
chairman,
that
would
be
the
motion.
C
C
See
none
will
vote
all
those
in
favor
of
the
motion,
please
indicate
by
saying
aye
aye,
any
opposed,
say
no
motion
passes
abigail.
Are
you
clear
on
your
instructions?
Perfect
thanks,
senator
hicks,
that
is
a
good
idea.
It'll
be
it'll,
be
fun
to
see
how
that
develops
and
how
the
what
the
public
thinks
about
it.
All
right.
We're
ready
now
to
move
on
to
item
26
reservoir.
C
One
fill
requirement.
This
request
for
your
information
came
out
of
management
council.
A
member
of
our
body
was
interested
in
this
and
the
management
council
requested.
We
add
it
to
our
interim
topics
and
so
director
gephardt
is
here,
and
we
also
have
a
handout,
a
memorandum
from
abigail
on
this
topic.
So,
let's
start
with
abigail.
C
Would
would
you
just
summarize
your
memorandum
to
us
abigail
and
tell
us
what
you?
What
is
the
doctrine
around
reservoir?
One
fill.
H
Mr
chairman,
in
looking
at
this
there's
really
there
was
cases
brought
before
the
border
control,
which
resulted
in
supreme
court
case
law
and
then,
following
that
case
law,
the
board
of
control
actually
put
it
into
its
rules
and
regulations
debate.
What
is
basically
now
the
current
one-fill
requirement,
which
you'll
see
quoted
at
the
end
there,
but
sort
of
the
foundation
of
the
court's
rationale,
was
that
in
under
the
prior
appropriation
doctrine,
you
really
can
only
use
your
water
right
once
and
priority.
C
A
So,
mr
chairman,
I'll
try
and
I
may
have
to
phone
a
friend
and
and
chris
to
help
me
with
this,
but
the
the
one
feel
it
it
is
in
rule
and
it
the
the
concept
is
that
we
have
to
quantify
what
the
water
right
is
and,
with
the
one
fill
rule,
we're
quantifying
that
water
right
by
the
bucket.
That
is
the
reservoir.
A
C
Director
I've
got
to
click.
Have
you
help
me
understand
something?
So
if
there
is
no
storage
water
rights,
so
we're
not
talking
about
big
reservoirs,
we're
talking
about
smaller
on-farm
reservoirs.
Probably,
is
that
what
you're
saying
when
you
said
there
is
no
storage
water
right
in
these
kinds
of
reservoirs?
What.
A
A
B
Go
slow
and
then
I'll
comment
afterwards,
because
it
delves
back
to
this
exact
case
and
exactly
you're
talking
about
the
understanding
you're
doing
I
get
it
this
cup.
So
if
I've
got
this,
my
reservoir
I've
got
the
right
to
fill
it
once
a
year
assuming
the
water's
there,
but
I
don't
have
a
right
to
fill
it
a
second
time
because
of
its
potential
effect,
and
I
go
back
to
prayer
appropriation
doctor
and
I'm
who
brought
this
here
and
it's
all
based
on
affected
parties.
B
B
So
what
we
have
in
a
lot
of
areas
of
wyoming
is
we
get
a
big
rainstorm
in
the
middle
of
the
summer
and
what
we
do
is
we
export
a
huge
amount
of
water
into
adjoining
states
because
nobody's
drawn
their
soils
are
all
saturated,
everything's
full
and
we
bypass
that
water.
They
make.
You
leave
your
head
gate
open
on
your
reservoir
and
it
flows
right
through
and
it
flows
through
the
neighbors
and
it
flows
through
the
junior
appropriators
and
flows
through
the
senior
appropriators
and
hits
another
state.
B
I
certainly
don't
see
where
there's
any
impact
on
this
case,
if,
in
fact,
that
you
have
to
open
your
head
gates
and
let
the
flow
out
if
anyone
requires
the
water,
anyone
any
water
right.
So
if,
let's
say
my
cup's
full
it's
empty,
I
use
it
up.
It's
dry
year
we
get
six
inches
of
rain
everybody's
saturated.
B
What's
the
harm
of
my
head
gate
being
shut
and
fill
a
supplemental
supply?
That
is
not
part
of
that
right,
but
it's
still
there
it's
storage
and
it's
available
to
be
used
instead
of
flowing
to
another
another
state,
and
I
I
think
we
have
a
hole
in
our
law
this
prior
to
this
decision,
which
is
really
interesting.
It's
almost
an
irrigation
district
against
itself
to
some
degree.
B
Prior
to
this,
for
over
a
hundred
years,
they
were
allowed
to
fill
reservoirs
repeatedly
in
the
state
of
wyoming,
with
no
no
severe
problems.
I
don't
see
a
lot
of
other
cases
out
there.
I
don't
see
a
lot
floating
and
I
I
question
what
we've
done
it's
under
rule,
it's
not
under
law,
and
it's
really
isn't.
When
you
read
the
summation
of
the
court
case
and
you
look
at
it,
it
really
doesn't
create
a
one-field
rule.
It
creates
a
damage
to
a
junior
right
and
so
to
me.
B
I
I
think,
if
we
codify,
if
we
went
back
and
created
a
section
of
the
statutes
or
that
you
did
it
by
rules,
it
says
anytime,
someone
makes
a
call,
which
is
what
we
do
right
now.
If
someone
says
hey,
I
don't
want
to
do
it.
It's
as
simple
as
telling
your
your
ditch
riders,
hey
the
guys,
can't
get
closer.
They
got
to
open
up
and
let
the
stream
flow
through.
If
there's
two
second
feed
above
they're
gonna
have
to
pass
through
two
second
feet
regardless.
What's
in
today,.
C
A
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
senator
driscoll.
Thank
you
in
practice.
We
do
interpret
that
law
or
the
rule
loosely,
in
fact,
in
our
wyoming
hydrographer
and
commissioner
manual.
This
is
data
2015..
A
We,
it
is
possible
I'll
quote
it.
It
is
possible
and
allowable
for
a
reservoir
to
accrue
more
than
this
one
fill
in
one
year
if
water
is
available
and
not
needed
by
any
other
appropriator
see
free
river
condition,
discussion
on
page
15.,
so
by
practice
we
will
allow
if,
if
there
is
no
injury
to
another
user,
we
will
allow
more
than
one
fill.
B
Is
that
codifier
is
that
in
your
rules,
because
they
certainly
don't
do
that
in
the
county
I
live
in.
My
head
gates
are
told
to
be
left
open
when
we
empty
our
reservoir.
We're
told
to
leave
it
open
and
I've
been
told
that
directly.
This
is
a
personal
deal.
You
can
call
it
a
conflict
if
you
want,
but
for
us
we've
been
told
when
it's
open,
it's
done,
and
I
I
don't
have
the
handbook.
I
need
to
get
a
copy
of
it
from
you,
but
we
we
voice
freshly
complained.
B
It
sits
high
and
dry
all
summer,
it's
fishery
for
the
state
of
wyoming
that
they've
stocked
repeatedly
and
it
sits
dry
now
for
the
last
number
of
years
it
sits
empty
and
it's
it's
not
just
me
it's
happening
in
other
places.
I
see
some
heads
not
and
so
I'd.
I
appreciate
your
your
comments
and
maybe
that
we're
just
got
an
individual
area.
That's
not
getting
followed
out
of
your
manual.
A
Yeah
and
mr
chairman
senator
driscoll,
I'm
not
aware
of
your
particular
case,
but
I
think
certainly
something
we
can
look
at
and-
and
I
would
encourage
chris
to
jump
in
here
too.
He
and
I
have
had
some
conversations
and
I
think
he
can
bring
chris.
C
I
So
representative
eckland,
mr
chairman,
I've
been
heard
complaints
on
pro
creek
there's
a
reservoir
just
not
far
from
cheyenne
and
it's
the
opposite
complaint.
It
continually
refills
and
if
it
does,
then
the
quick
water
down
crow
creek
and
it's
a
bunch
of
irrigation
below
it.
Those
wells
can't
irrigate
if,
if
the
creek
doesn't
flow
at
some
point
in
time,
they
they
run
out
of
water
in
their
aquifers.
So
that's
kind
of
an
opposite
problem
and
I'm
not
sure
I
think
you're
aware.
J
Thank
you,
mr
chairman
yeah.
This
has
been
very
illuminating
to
me
as
well,
because
I
guess
I
should
have
done
more
due
diligence
as
I
was
looking
into
this,
because
I
actually
looked
at
trying
to
put
in
a
reservoir
on
a
tributary
to
the
belle
feus
river.
But
my
major
hang
up
was
the
one
fill
rule
and
the
fact
that
I
would
put
that
much.
J
So
I
guess
I
did
not
realize
that
that
you
guys
have
that
on
the
books
in
there
and
that
would
be
willing
to.
But
I
appreciate
senator
driscoll's
question:
is
that
just
a
rule
that
you
guys
just
I
mean
director
gephardt
when
you
leave?
Can
that
disappear,
or
was
that
something
that
is
didn't
codified
in
in
statute
or
anything?
That
would
create
a
long-term
ability
to
have
that
opportunity,
because
it
definitely
is
an
issue
where
we're
at
up
in
our
part
of
the
country
hold.
C
That
thought
any
other
ranchers
or
farmers
it.
I've
got
a
room
full
of
experts
on
the
subject.
I'm
anxious
to
hear
your
input,
nothing!
Okay,
all
right!
Let's
go
back
to
chris!
Would
you
like
to
share
some
thoughts
on
this.
F
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
chris
brown
supervised
the
water
section
of
the
wyoming
attorney
general's
office
and
I'm
just
hoping
to
to
hopefully
put
a
little
more
context
in
this
and
and
kind
of
some
of
our
discussions.
Yesterday.
Many
of
these
questions
are
really
dictated
by
the
local
factual
circumstances.
F
You
can
get
into
a
whole
bunch
of
different
scenarios,
but
but
hopefully
I
can
relay
a
couple
of
factual
instances
that
might
help
us
think
about
some
of
the
issues,
one
being
on
crow
creek,
which
has
certainly
been
a
perplexing
problem
for
a
number
of
years.
That,
hopefully,
is
resolved,
but
let
me
talk
about
the
one
field
rule
generally
and,
and
that
was
a
rule
that
that
has
been
announced
by
the
wyoming
supreme
court.
F
Of
course,
it
was
following
a
decision
that
was
made
by
the
border
control,
which
was
an
implementation
of
the
one
fill
so
before
the
border
control
actually
put
it
in
its
rules.
This
is
something
that
stems
from
the
way
that
reservoirs
are
permitted
through
our
process.
To
begin
with,
it's
permitted
to
a
capacity
in
in
dealing
with
you.
You
only
get
the
amount
of
water
that
you're
permitted
to
have
in
wyoming,
be
it
direct
flow,
be
it
ground
water,
be
it
storage
right.
F
That
is
the
the
extent
of
your
right
and
the
board
of
control's
interpretation.
You
have
the
the
opportunity
to
fill
it
to
the
capacity
of
that
reservoir
and
that's
largely
to
avoid
speculation,
allow
folks
to
grow
into
a
water
right
that
they
might
not
have
a
reasonable
use
for
the
anti-speculation
doctrine
under
the
doctrine
of
appropriation
and
also
to
assure
that
we're
not
harming
junior
appropriators
that
come
to
this
system
after
whatever
that
facility
is
you're
limited
to
what
it
is.
F
You
need
at
that
time
for
beneficial
use,
you're
not
allowed
to
expand
it
into
the
future.
The
idea
about
the
opportunity
for
a
second
fill
on
free
river
has
been
around
just
as
long
and
the
the
notion
of
the
one
field.
F
Foose
compact,
I
I
believe,
happens
under
other
compacts
that
we
have
as
well,
but
but
there,
but
just
like
direct
flow
rights,
you're
not
limited
to
under
a
direct
flow
right
to
one
cfs
per
70
or
even
two
cfs
per
70.
If
the
river
is
not
under
regulation,
if
it's
under,
if
it's
not
under
regulation,
it's
a
senior
right
has
not
made
a
call.
Any
appropriator
is
entitled
to
take
just
as
much
water
as
they
can
take
the
only
limit
being
beneficial
use.
You
can't
take
more
than
you
can
beneficially
use
or
state
it.
F
Another
way
you
can't
take
water
and
waste
it,
but
if
you
have
the
beneficial
use
under
your
right,
it
has
to
be
used
where
you
have
the
right
to
use
it.
But
if
you
have
the
the
ability
to
use
more
water
than
you're
right
in
a
free
river
condition,
you
can't
you're
not
limited
to
one
cfs
you're,
not
limited
to
two
cfs.
F
You
can
take
just
as
much
water
as
you
need
as
long
as
you
can
beneficially
use
it,
and
that
is
actually
in
statute
and
then,
like
I
said,
the
one
fill
rule
and
it's
applied
all
across
the
state.
If
we're
in
free
river
condition,
a
reservoir
can
fill
more
than
once
and
just
think
about
it,
as
the
reservoir
is
already
filled
once
during
the
water
year,
starting
october,
1st
it
filled
during
the
water
year,
we've
drained
it
some
for
some
use,
we're
still
not
in
regulation.
F
It's
essentially
the
junior
right
on
the
stream.
It's
not
going
to
hurt
anybody
else,
so
it
can
just
feel
again,
and
this
was
the
situation
that
occurred
on
crew
creek
for
many
many
years
and
there's
a
very
interesting
reason
why
that
happened,
and
let
me
talk
about
the
crow
creek
example,
just
briefly
that
the
and
there's
a
couple
of
fairly
good-sized
reservoirs
on
crow
creek
that
are
just
downstream
from
the
city
of
cheyenne
and
there's
no
other
significant
surface
water
rights
below
those
reservoirs
on
crow
creek
a
long
time
ago.
F
All
those
all
those
rights
down
there
all
went
to
the
ground
right
and
all
the
major
irrigation
rights
down
there
all
pumped
from
the
ground,
and
the
problem
with
that
is
there
was
never
a
call
there
was
there.
Was
there
wasn't
a
right
downstream
from
those
reservoirs
to
make
a
call,
so
we're
always
in
free
river
condition,
and
so
there
wasn't,
there
wasn't
a
and
it's
the
the
second
fill
always
in
effect,
because
there
wasn't
a
call
there
wasn't
a
junior
appropriator,
putting
a
call
on
the
stream.
F
Some
of
those
groundwater
appropriators
says
we
need
this
stream
flow
in
order
to
recharge
the
aquifers
that
we
can
use
our
groundwater
wells
who
are
senior
to
the
second
fill
right,
and
so
we
need
to
be
able
to
make
that
call,
and
so
they
put
in
an
application
to
the
state
engineer
at
the
time
in
order
to
a
groundwater
recharge
project,
and
in
looking
at
that
scenario-
and
this
is
one
of
the
statutes
that
we
took
the
la-
took
a
look
at
yesterday-
it's
413
916,
and
this
is
the
interconnectedness
statute.
F
The
state
engineer
at
the
time
declared
that
it
was
a
single
source
of
supply,
because
the
waters
were
so
interconnected
that
they
constituted
a
single
source
of
supply
and
so
that
the
water
rights
that
drew
from
that
supply
would
be
regulated
in
a
single
schedule
of
priorities.
Essentially,
what
it
allowed
was
for
the
groundwater
users
downstream
on
crow
creek
to
put
a
call
on
the
creek,
so
those
reservoirs
couldn't
get
a
second
fill.
F
So
that
is
the
status
of
things.
Now,
let
me
and
just
to
put
a
finer
point
in
and
remember,
and
I
can
fully
appreciate
the
individual
circumstances,
the
smaller
on-farm
reservoirs
and
the
potential
complexity
of
getting
water
from
here
and
there
inside
some
of
those
systems,
but
remember
the
potential
impact
that
this
could
have
on
some
of
the
bigger
reservoirs
that
we
have
in
the
state.
I
can
tell
you
that
the
bureau
reclamation
in
the
past
is
attempted
to
actually
file
formally
for
a
second
fill
and
it
was
denied
by
the
state
engineer.
F
This
is
one
of
the
major
issues
that
we
had
in
the
litigation
with
montana
brandon
just
said,
we
just
got
done
responding
to
a
call
from
the
state
of
montana
to
fill
tung
river
reservoir
when
we're
in
the
middle
of
that
litigation
montana
claimed
that
it
did
not
follow
the
one
field
rule,
even
though
it
has
a
wham
or
a
montana
supreme
court
case.
That
says
we
absolutely
they.
They
had
a
case
before
wyoming
had
a
case.
That
said,
we
follow
the
one
phil
rule,
but
montana
argued
vigorously
that
no,
we
don't.
F
They
didn't
get
get
away
with
the
full
appropriation.
They
next
argued
that
they
had
a
right
to
fill
at
a
time
and
a
half
127
000
acre
feet
for
an
80,
000,
acre
foot
reservoir
and
argued
that
they
had
historically
operated
in
that
way
and
therefore
they
had
a
right
to
fill
it
to
127
000
acre
feet.
We
very
strongly
oppose
that
and
very
strongly
asserted
the
one
fill
rule,
and
today
the
united
states
supreme
court.
They
recognize
they
only
have
a
right
to
one
fill
as
against
the
junior
appropriators
in
wyoming,
it's
free
river.
B
B
The
second
one
has
no
right
to
do
that
other
than
if
you're
in
a
free
river
status,
which
I'm
I
don't
know,
free
rivers
in
statute
or
not.
I'm
not
not
up
on
the
statutes
good
enough,
but
I
can
tell
you
in
fact,
on
the
ground
they're,
not
allowing
us
any
type
of
fill
and
for
your
end,
back
to
the
end
of
it.
I'm
pretty
familiar
with
belle
fish,
river
compact
and
there's
never
been
a
call
on
the
belfooch
river.
B
Is
we
operate
on
their
own
priority
system
as
long
as
there's
not
a
call
on
the
river?
We
it's
our
right
to
use
that
water
as
long
as
we've
got
existing
rights
if
they
want
to
enforce
a
call,
they
need
to
make
a
call
on
the
river.
I
realize
that
complicates
your
guys's
life,
but
they
need
to
run
by
the
rules
and
that's
that's
really
part
of
what
you're
seeing
is
frustration
up
down
the
river
we
had
it
happen.
B
Last
year
they
shut
down,
they
dried
up
the
place
county
last
year
without
a
call
being
on
the
river
representing
mr
chairman.
But
to
me
I
tend
to
go
back
to
the
free
river
and
put
it
in
statute.
I
don't
care
about
the
feds
either
if,
if
the
river's
in
free
flow
that
water's
going
downstream-
and
I
can
tell
you
for
south
dakota
at
least
against
us,
bureck
in
south
dakota-
bypasses
that
water.
B
When
we
hit
the
big
storms
because
they're
full
of
silt,
they
dump
them
out
in
the
bellefoous
river
and
they
go
on
down.
It's
it's
been.
One
thing
that's
drove
me
insane
is
ormond,
won't
be
full
and
they'll
be
bypassing
water
because
they
don't
want
silt
norman,
and
yet
I
can't
catch
it
in
my
damn,
I'm
sitting
there
with
a
head
gate
and
I
think
that
your
sense
of
frustration
is
for
real.
Oh.
D
Mr
chairman,
I
I
think
this
is
laid
out
this
discussion
is
is
really
what
we
need
is
a
clear
statutory
scheme.
I
think
chris
laid
part
of
it
out
what
what
isn't
what
isn't
in
statute?
D
So
I
don't
want
to
get
into
the
the
interference
stuff
we're
just
talking
about
free
or
second
fills.
I
think
it
would
be
helpful,
very
helpful
for
for
particularly
me
to
understand
how
those
things
interplay
and
which
one
governs,
and
if
we
could
get
that
in
our
next
meeting,
that
would
be
helpful
to
understand
this.
D
D
Based
on
our
own
one
field,
rule
and,
and
that
I
think
is
going
to
be
particularly
important
as
we
continue
to
move
forward
on
the
colorado
and
we
have
conversations
of
how
fontanelle
could
could
play
into
here,
and
I
think
chris
really
articulated
well
the
fact
that
that
you
know
you
have
to
have
that
beneficial
use
a
tied
to
that
second
fill
and
I'm
not
so
sure
that
we
have
all
the
enumerated
beneficial
uses
that
we
would
want
to
in
the
colorado
river
basin
to
fully
exercise
the
ability
of
a
second
fill.
D
And
so
I'll.
Just
tell
you.
I
think
we
need
to
look
at
something
in
context
of
this.
Second
bill
concept:
look
at
compact
compliance
and
drought,
contingency
moving
forward
and
specifically,
as
it
gets
to
senator
driscoll's
comp
or
comment
that
in
some
cases,
we're
just
letting
this
water
run
downstream
when
we
should
be
capturing
it
as
long
as
there's
no
impact
to
any
existing
water
user
on
the
system.
D
But
I
wonder
when
it
comes
to
the
legal
aspects
of
of
a
curtailment
or
a
regulatory
call
or
compact
call
our
own
one
field
rule
maybe
lemminess
on
the
ability
to
meet
compact
compliance.
But
it's
just
my
thought,
mr
chairman.
So
I
would
ask
director,
gephardt
and
chris,
if
it's
feasible,
to
put
that
kind
of
statutory
rule
framework
flow
chart
together
for
us
for
the
next
meeting.
C
There's
been
understanding
in
the
field
that
the
one
field
rule
is
it
that's
all
there
is
you
read
to
us
out
of
your
field
manual?
That
says,
if
there's
no
call
on
the
river
and
there's
ample
water
and
no
one's
going
to
be
damaged,
let
let
people
fill
the
reservoir
twice.
Is
that
correct?
So
that's,
that's
your
internal
policy.
C
There
seems
to
be
a
discrepancy
of
whether
or
not
some
field
people
are
adhering
to
that.
So
what
senator
hicks
has
suggested
is
on
a
bigger
scope
of
things.
Is
our
policy
loose
or
not
loose
damaging
the
ability
for
the
state
of
wyoming
to
retain
every
drop
of
water
that
we
can
justify
along
the
way
yeah?
I
think
it's
worth
investigating.
So
we'd
appreciate
your
efforts
in
coaching
us
and
bringing
back
some
information.
C
A
D
C
Yes,
and-
and
so
once
you
present
that
to
us
in
august,
we
can
determine
if
there's
legislation
that
needs
to
be
drafted
up
and
chris.
We
would
really
appreciate
your
assistance.
If
there
is
legislation
to
be
drafted,
would
you
like
to
have
your
insight
into
making
sure
it's
written
in
a
way
that's
going
to
protect
us
all
the
way
around,
so
we're
not
doing
something
that
would
not
be
wise.
B
One
more
question-
and
this
goes
back
to
bureaucracy.
I
echo
the
chairman's
good
thoughts
as
far
as
we
certainly
don't
want
to
do
something
that
causes
harm.
I
I'm
more
a
long
line.
A
commissioner
bishop
in
the
old
days
of
how
does
wyoming
keep
every
drop
of
water
in
wyoming,
and
so
could
we
possibly
get
around
the
burek
deal
by
putting
a
deal
that
says
back
on
the
free
river
that
it
only
applies
to
a
thousand
acre
foot
or
less
or
2
000
or
less
or
three,
because
these
b
rec
facilities
are
huge.
B
All
of
them
are
big
they're,
100,
000
acres.
So
what
we're
really
hitting
on
most
of
these
are
smaller
type
facilities
that
are
on
drainage.
That
probably
should
have
been
bigger
reservoirs.
In
all
honesty,
they
probably
had
a
lot
bigger
ride
on
them,
but
cost
too
much
money
to
do
it.
I
can
tell
you:
ours
is
certainly
that
way.
The
water
development
did
a
study
on
it.
Our
sports
4
000
acre
foot
reservoir.
Yet
it
has
100
acre
foot
reservoir
on
it.
They
were
shocked
that
it
stayed
in.
B
So
I
I
think,
there's
some
some
leeway
in
there
to
to
try
to
do
that.
My
my
goal
is
like
I
said:
how
do
we
keep
every
beneficial
drop
of
water
in
wyoming
that
we
legally
can
do?
I
don't
want
to
violate
compacts,
and
I
certainly
don't
want
to
violate
anybody
in
the
prior
appropriation
doctor
and
has
a
right
is
if
someone
downstream
needs
water
and
they
have
a
right
that's
in
priority,
they
certainly
should
be
able
to
do
it.
B
That
seems
to
make
an
incredible
amount
of
sense
as
well
to
me,
and
you
know-
and
these
are
tough
in
reality-
you
rarely
end
up
draining
them.
I
tell
you
once
again
on
the
streams
that
I
know
in
multiples
of
them:
there's
all
kinds
of
illegal
impoundments
on
them
that
you
could
legally
drain
out,
but
it's
you
know
cause
some
kind
of
death
in
the
county
to
get
it
done,
support
you
guys
to
drain
them
because
they're
kind
of
interesting.
B
B
I'd
make
a
motion
that
we
as
chairman,
I
would
move
that
we
have
director
gephardt
and,
with
the
help
of
the
ag's
office,
give
us
a
flowchart
of
how
the
one
fill
rule.
B
Is
there
what
part
of
it's
in
statute,
what
part
of
its
by
rules
and
what
part
of
it
is
non-rules
and
manuals
in
a
cohesive
flow
chart
that
we
can
see,
give
us
a
definition
of
free
river,
either
in
statute
or
from
court
decisions,
and
then
I'd
also
like
to
see
you
bring
us
rather
than
summaries
actual
copies
of
court
cases
that
have
direct
impact
on
the
one
fill
rule.
C
D
H
C
C
D
Yeah
I
I
would
just
like
to
thank
you,
you
you're,
on
a
very
fine
meeting,
mr
chairman,
and
I
appreciate
you're
getting
us
prepared
for
this
meeting
and
putting
together
the
agenda,
and
I
was
looking
forward
to
coming
over
to
your
neck
of
the
woods
in
august.
But
unfortunately,
I've
got
an
other
commitment
that
I
have
to
keep
with
the
caribou
up
in
alaska
and
and
so
as
much
as
I'd
like
to
see
you
in
august.
Mr
chairman,
I
will
have
to
ask
for
your
permission
to
be
excused
from
that
meeting.
A
I
do,
mr
chairman,
our
board
of
control.
Our
august
board
of
control
coincides
with
the
select
water
meeting
in
august.
I
think
we
can
make
arrangements
to
to
attend,
but
it'll
have
to
be
virtually
because
we
will
be
in
casper
for
the
border
control.