Laserfiche WebLink
RK don't think it is either. Should put in. <br />EK part of judge's ruling <br />RK once at lk <br />Jeff Issue isn't calling water rights issue is that these can call others upstream <br />EK concerned that judging all based on golden. Others are very different. <br />RK each one is very diff. With aspen is physical diversion. Vail no one upstream but them. <br />Breck is diff, one upstream w /conditional rights. CO springs, several subdivisions in headwaters. <br />EK: their problem isn't breck it's Denver. Was not concern about future impacts at that time. <br />Jeff. criteria is whether structures in stream at up end and down terminus. What the purpose of <br />considering downtream control structures would be? <br />RK could have one structure that is up and down. Idea of measure of control through entire <br />course. Don't want situation with agreement btwn city and county 2 mi apart and no one in <br />between has any say. <br />Jeff not clear whether applciant is being expected to meet criteria there or asking for info about <br />it. Need to clarify. <br />TK: part of rules were required pursuant to statute. Part is what board would like info on and <br />some of that we put as shall, may need to change to may if not required by statute. <br />Jeff water right admin and determination act. Identify what ref or water judge use for criteria and <br />what considered in ruling. May want separate section like that. All this info but the minimal <br />threshold. <br />RK anticipate something like that would be ask court to require of application of this nature so <br />could be reviewed and decision made yes or no? only thing required of applicant is to give us <br />copy of application. What it says will determine whether we come back and ask for more. Gets <br />around laurie's concern about parallel paths. <br />Jeff presumptively correct in water court. Applicant may not give info b/c afraid of <br />presumptively correct ruling from you. <br />RK be careful. Could come back to bite you. Depends on how response from water board <br />phrased as to needed info. May have client needing to prove more in water court than in this <br />process. Golden case drove legislation. Evolutionary process in water rights system that we can <br />deal with this issue. Instream flows. Envision this as one of. Big hole in FC deicision and <br />someone took advantage of that and leg wasn't happy with that. Want to work <br />R <br />