Canon City Public Hearing Minutes

Home Browse Search

Canon City Public Hearing Started 7:30 pm Rod gave slide presentation Open to public comment, fortunate to have Board chair and several BLM members. Rod review comments made so far Concern about tenor of the rules "shall" 2 respondants made these. Went back and looked at statute, really only requires applicant to submit application. Board must consider impacts to compact, whether or not is degree of control and any other factors board considers relevant. Board has lots of leway. Will be guided by this and how will be melded into the progress. See recommendations going to board reflecting request for information board has to consider. If board doesn't receive info requested applicant could find that recommendations by the board could go against them (could be language). Make it more applicant friendly but not walk away from real need. Dave Can a county or special district file? RK yes, includes special districts as well as cities and counties. Guy in back. Rec district not specifically listed. an Dave Canon City rec district has talked about doing something along 5 mi walk way. Surprised not here tonight. RK: read the legislation and who is qualified under local government DM: back in early80s blm state director wrote board letter about whether board's instream flow program could get water for boating. Although not explictiy excluded, board debated and said could but no, natural environment not recreation. 216 provides for local gov to provide excludes state or federal government. Rk excluding state dealt with parks and wildlife from making filings. Would put an inchannel filing in someone elses balywick than CWCB. Fed some way of getting around limitations by xx ammendment where FS said if went in and put rocks in strategic places, probably the reason why fs was excluded. To get inchannel looking at local gov. has to be a grass roots thing. Not from washington, denver, special DT along arkansas that's the logical place for it.