My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD00158
CWCB
>
Chatfield Mitigation
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
1-1000
>
BOARD00158
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 2:46:02 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 6:32:40 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
12/12/1973
Description
Agenda or Table of Contents, Minutes, Memos
Board Meetings - Doc Type
Meeting
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
49
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
<br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Mr. Sparks: It is too late. <br /> <br />Mr. Berthelson: Somewhere down the road we are still toying with the <br />law that it mayor may not be constitutional. <br /> <br />Mr. Sparks: That's right. This is what we pointed out last year. <br />These things don't get an automatic review in the Supreme Court. <br />There has to be an adversary proceeding. Somebody has to be able to <br />show injJry. It would be difficult for anybody to show injury on <br />the Fryingpan, for instance. It was already written in the Operating <br />principles. We may be running into a more complex problem on the <br />San Juan, but I doubt that we are going to have any contest down there <br />either. We may drift along for years not knowing whether the law is <br />valid or not. <br /> <br />Mr. Kroeqer: If the law turns out to be not valid. then what happens? <br />On these like the Fryingpan or the San Juan? <br /> <br />Mr. Sparks: We haven't wasted all of the work. Our studies are still <br />valid. The big expense is doing the studies to determine the mini- <br />mum stream flows. What we may lose is a priority date. We would <br />have to start allover again as far as a priority date is concerned. <br />If the law is not valid, then there is only one route to go and that <br />is a constitutional amendment. What we are doing is losing valuable <br />time. That is what it amounts to. <br /> <br />Mr. Berthelson: Have you got any further schedule on where you go <br />after the San Juan? I would like to suggest that you take a look at <br />that. <br /> <br />Mr. Sparks: Yes. We have a tentative schedule that we worked out <br />with the wildlife agencies. As I recall, the next area that we had <br />programmed was the Roaring Fork and the Crystal because of the great <br />development in that area. That is felixible. What we have tried to <br />do is base our priorities on the areas where the greatest development <br />is occurring and the threat to the streams is the greatest. <br /> <br />Mr. Vandemoer: If that would be Marble, that might not be as fast <br />as you thought at that time. It looks like it has slowed way down. <br /> <br />Mr. Sparks: The Roaring Fork itself is getting to be wall-to-wall <br />people. We were thinking in terms of the Crystal also. <br /> <br />Mr. Stapleton: All right. Thank you, Larry. <br />resolutions of the Southwestern Water Board? <br />Do you want any action taken on them? <br /> <br />Now what were the <br />We have received them. <br /> <br />-33- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.