Recreational Instream Flow Workshop Tanscription of Meeting Tape

Home Browse Search

L � tl r expansion because you are seeking the maximum amount of water as opposed to the minimum for or whether their not. And so that's the reason why we are here. Unidentified speaker But I don't think that's really discussing that case and why were in and why were not and what the legal strategies are. I think that's kind of outside the scope of what we are trying talk about here. And I would likee to see us get back on topic. EW Don? Don Scwhindt — Paul, it says he has Steve has it back on topic. To me partly, so it sounds as if we are kind of on topic here. Because it looks like were asked to deal with a, in affect the instream flow and Mike's words are an instream channel appropriation. And the paper that was written the thought piece got criticism for being muddled and not thoughtful. Those of us on this board there is a couple. What do w have got, just one attorney now Patti. Patti Wells- Oh dear. Don Schwindt I know a little bit about water, but I'm not a water attorney. I wouldn't be on this board if I didn't know a little bit about water but I still can be educated considerably but hopefully I have something to offer. It looks as if we are getting into kind of something new. That's why its muddled. That's why we should be in here. Is the place to solve it in the legislature or the court? Do we have those two choices or is there a third choice. That's kind of where this conversation or this dialogue was going what's on topic. Which path do we choose. Its started, before we started to get into this in a little more depth. I started to ask Eric the question O.K. where do we go from this discussion now. What is the appropriate role for this board to be playing. How do we think about that. Well the discussion is kind of pointed us down those paths. Do we choose between legislation, potential legislation? Thinking about that path, or do we choose between the courts. And if we are playing the only the limited role that Steve said we are in this for. Does that really solve, does that allows us to play the role that Mike said we could play in the court case to solve the problems that this case is maybe bringing. To answer the questions in terms of reasonableness and the other things that Mike could quote being a good lawyer, much better than I can. That's what I wrestle with in my mind. Is those kinds of things. And so, I still see is that we talked about it at our board a lot. And I came on the same time as Harold, March of 99' and listened to all of this and watching it. And the lawyers point you down a fairly narrow path. And maybe we don't want to be down that narrow of a path in this issue. I don't kno And that was the direction that the board gave me as one the board memos in March of 99 but I «•as brand new guy then. And we would change that as a result of some this dialogue, that direction. That's what I struggle with in my mind. In the interest of sharing muddled thoughts I guess. Eric Wilkinson It seems we are still going back to a situation of reasonableness here and what's reasonable. And a expansion of the Fort Collins case, as well as defining the exact purpose of the instream flow right. You know there seems to be some skepticism about that as well. And I guess for one, it seems at least what I have heard today . That there are recreational instream flows out there that are purely recreational instream flows and there's recreational instream flows out there that were developed for other motives. Or as a tool for other motives. And you know we gotta to sort through the wheat and chaff and see how we come up with that stuff. I just, reasonableness at least to me seems to be the biggest question and how we define that. Mike may have it from the point of view that you have got to do it on each specific case. And look at it how it applies to each specific case. And then the questions of the maximum or the minimum to achieve the beneficial use. And Glen brings out some arguments there in regard to 300 cfs right or a 500 cfs right or that %vas Patti I guess. So I don't know where we actually....yes. 39