Laserfiche WebLink
t 1, T <br />Don Schwindt Are you saying that the courts could write that effectively though then Mike? <br />Mike Shimmin Well courts are well- equipped or as well as any decision - making mechanism we have in <br />our political system for deciding what I call fact based issues. You've got this guy saying he needs a <br />thousand and you have got this guy saying he only needs a hundred and the judge listens to the testimony <br />and makes a decision o.k. How much am I going to give them? And it's the best mechanism I know of I <br />know its expensive and I know people don't like it for some reasons and that why I think the Board and <br />the State Engineer can serve a valuable function in that process as parties to those litigations that do have <br />to occur because there is such a dispute over how much is enough. You can get in there and advocate how <br />to balance some of these issues. You can tell the judge your perspective on balancing: you need this <br />amount to make this kind of a boating experience versus hove does maximum utilization of the waters of <br />the state as a policy issue balance out. That is part of the function of the Colorado Water Conservation <br />Board. <br />Don Schwindt - I am really going to show my ignorance by responding to that with the question that a <br />what is our role how is our role, defined there and where to we get standing in court to make those kinds <br />of arguments? <br />Mike Shimmin You're an objector in the case. <br />Don Schwindt But we are an objector because of our instream flow filing correct. <br />Glen Porzak You don't have instream flow filing on that river. That's the point, you're in there, god <br />knows why you are in there ( laughter) but you are going to create new law. I mean you are and I think <br />that is one of things. <br />Don Schwindt So we are in there for the reasons that Mike said and what you're. We are in there to <br />create new law and we can be as innovative as we choose? <br />Glen Porzak — Well one wonders if that is the proper role of the Conservation Board. And that is one of <br />things I was trying to address. Is that truly the role of the Colorado Water Conservation Board? I am not <br />sure it is. You do not have an instream flow filing on that stretch of the river. <br />Patti Wells So you are disagreeing with Mike? That we should stay out of the case. <br />Glen Porzak — No because there is going to be other Clear Creek County is going to be in the case. I <br />mean, are you in there doing Clear Creek County's bidding or are you in there really trying to protect an <br />instream flow. You know those we are going to make that argument obviously. Is that, what are the <br />grounds that you can legitimately raise as a water user because you don't have a water right? But I <br />generally agree with what Mike's having to say. <br />Patti Wells — Let me just respond to that. You can't have it both ways. We have a policy this is how <br />terms and conditions can help protect and limit this right and protect the compact entitlement. But you <br />CWCB bug out of my case. We are not going to do Clear Creek's bidding let me tell you that right now <br />o.k. This is a concern that has been a concern to board members since the Fort Collins case came out. It <br />in fact looks a lot like an instream flow. That's why we were in the Fort Collin's case in the first place. It <br />still looks like it. I understand the legal distinction. I am not dumb enough not to understand there is <br />legal distinction. But I also understand that it is easier to get. it is less measurable for the reasons that we <br />talked about than some other kind of water rights. And people are concerned about it. Golden is the <br />36 <br />