My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Steamboat Springs Meeting Minutes
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
3001-4000
>
Steamboat Springs Meeting Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/14/2010 1:11:12 PM
Creation date
6/11/2010 4:03:34 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
Description
RICD Meetings and Notes
State
CO
Basin
Yampa/White/Green
Water Division
6
Date
8/7/2001
Title
Steamboat Springs Meeting Minutes
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Al glad apealed and hope prevail. Was there a punitive element in filing against clear creek. <br />RK on tape that filing nothing to do with boat chute and all with clear creek's down zoning. <br />Haven't used it yet but if hear that we aren't open to rec may need to. Anything else? <br />Dave have draft set of rules. Any comments on changes or anything don't think appropriate. <br />Have put down mention of everything we thought of and probably some refinement but I'd like <br />to hear if anyone has comments /ojbections. <br />Al recalling what was on house floor and concerns with quasi judicial. Support increased once <br />compromise out. Might not have passed otherwise. Concerns that draft proposal heading back to <br />quasi judicial. To hear and understand that heading down road anticipated by leg. <br />RK river district had extensive comments on those issues. Shall statements thing. We've decided <br />only shall is submit an application. The rest will be may statements for the applicant but shall for <br />the board b/c board required by board to do so by leg. <br />Dave under 5. Change to shall and may. Goal was to outline everything felt interested in. so may <br />is better. May be able to provide some easily and some in depth can't afford. <br />Al ok with shall in all so long as court not bound by your decision. All said we don't like it but <br />have to do something. Ended up with compromise. A lot of work on behalf of the courts but can <br />come up with own finding. <br />RK both al and jack level heads through whole process when could have walked away. Rec <br />industry and water users benefit. <br />Jack at risk of dying many times. Votes were there to kill in senate. <br />DC as long as there is fairness and reasonableness in approach then we've gained a lot. If not <br />audacious and arrogant. From perspective of private property. Firm believer in private property <br />rights but where what you do affects up and downstream. Affect rate of flow above and below. <br />RK we need to expand knowledge base on this. What happens above and below. Has been <br />traditional responsibility of civil courts. Runoff drainage. I don't know we should be involved in <br />unless on front end saying to guard against it. <br />DC that's an important issue. Lots of smaller private property owners can't afford to go to court <br />and someone should be looking out for them up front. Mitigate ahead of time. <br />Bob Burr bothered me at leg saying cwcb bureaucratic bunch of individuals. Can see by judge's <br />decision what one man's opinion can do. With board, there are 9 people that vote. One person's <br />opinion is not that significant. Bob and Dave are ranchers. Deal with water. Sometimes judges <br />don't. address issue that some attorneys thought board stepping out of room into their ruling <br />procedure by rules on 216. I don't see it that way myself. We have a charge to take care of state's <br />5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.