Laserfiche WebLink
Sarah Dunn: lots of comments go back to #5. May require address lots of burden on applicant. <br />For conditional right some of these may not apply. Right now on <br />RK leg didn't put on par. Agree with you. Applicant doesn't have to provide. But some criteria <br />leg laid out for us. Ie interstate compacts. Both parties sit down and talk about. Issue of may and <br />shall will be changing that. Enough impact from board itself based on chris's input. Cooperation <br />rather than conflict. <br />Kyle Whittaker: leg did in part limit transfer of conidtioanl right to rec right. What about transfer <br />of rec right to another entity. Limits or eliminates exchange potential. Holder of right could sell <br />or transfer and use as growth management tool or selective subordination. Comments? <br />RK: Golden is clearly that. Attorney on tape. Raise interesting point. Could right be transefered <br />to other. If transfer, would remain non. Intent is local gov with process of resp to constituent <br />through elected or appointed have duty to constituent. Why limited to that. Measure of control. <br />Filings by state borders sold it on legislature. Why responsible party as holder of water. If gave <br />to special interest no longer valid. <br />David: selective subordination. If take something away from minimum may have donut hole. <br />Could be exaggerated concern. <br />RK: if course in disarray and salvage. <br />TK point was explicity raised in golden. Really was some lesser # b/c willing to <br />EK: On CO river where have streams leaving state. Compact obligation is 10 yr ave. how would <br />anyone ever say impact it? On CO, how ever determine. Physciall how do it? <br />RK much more complicated on CO (than s. platte). Responsible to protect share regardless of <br />hydrologists. <br />David: instream and compact entitlements, but took away that 450000 acre feet may remain <br />undeveloped. 2 million. <br />RK based on 1995 #s <br />David have diff views w /in own agency. As to what state has to reliably develop <br />RK mine is to claim larger #. Position DNR and board have. Whether physically attainable isn't <br />for me to decide. Dolores have to look at existing and future residents and make call on <br />apportioning water on streams in equitable manner. <br />David in 1995 cwcb decided wasn't feasible. Maybe something changed. But agency did very <br />good job and couldn't do it. <br />7 <br />