BOARD00155 ‎(2)‎

• Board Meeting Date: 3/13/2007
• Description: ISF Section - 2007 New Appropriations
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

~.."" -,

Baessler, Jeffrey

. From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:

Baessler, Jeffrey
Thursday, March 08, 2007 12:27 PM
'[e-mail]'
'Travis Smith'; Doherty, Todd; Bassi, Linda; Williams, Owen; '[e-mail]'
RE: Alder Creek Instream Flow Appropriation

Dear Dr. Mcleod,

Thank you for your prompt response. I understand your position. I will provide the Board
with this e-mail, my previous e-mail response to you, as well as your letter and will
again let them know of your concerns and intentions.

Thank you,

Jeff Baessler
Senior Water Resource Specialist
Colorado Water Conservation Board
1313 Sherman Street, Room 721
Denver, CO 80203
Phone [phone]
Business Cell 720-289-1273

-----Original Message-----
From: Timothy L. McLeod M.D. [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 11:31 AM
To: Baessler, Jeffrey
Subject: RE: Alder Creek Instream Flow Appropriation

.Dear Mr Baessler, Thank you for your email and thoughts on my proposal for ending the
reach at my property line. As a busy orthopedic surgeon, I am having to spend too much
time on this issue and the various assurances about future use on my property. There are
too many "may be able" to do this or that clauses in response to my future use of my
property. Therefore, I am requesting the lower terminus of this proposed reach end at my
western property line. I see no reason to extend the reach into my property and although
the CWCB does not consider land ownership and boundaries, I certainly do as regards
ANYTHING that might restrict my freedom of use on my property. Why would the Board object
to ending the reach at my property line and insist on carrying it into my property except
to potentially restrict and limit my future use of historical diversion points, the right
to drill wells-exempt or not and the right to develop and use my property in ways that may
not be known
today? Rather than trying to incorporate provisions to protect my rights, I feel strongly
that the simplest compromise is to end the reach at my property line. I may need to
enlist a water attorney to protect my future uses (which are not all known or planned at
this time) from restrictions steming from this proposed filing. Given the facts as I know
them at this point, I will have to file a notice to object to this proposed filing, hire
an attorney and lobby Congressman Massey to assist me if the lower terminus is not
redefined to end at my western property line. Sincerely, Timothy McLeod

Je Le Soignay,Dieu Le Gue'rit.

I dressed the wound, God healed it.

eA. Pare'

Tracking:

Recipient

Read

1