BOARD00326

• Board Meeting Date: 1/19/1977
• Description: Agenda, Minutes, Resolution
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Meeting

for the landowner to continue irrigating, and to continue irrigating in
the historic pattern which was the basis of the minimum stream flow
claim.

I

We believe there are some property right considerations incthat regard,
and certainly some transfer considerations, and we do want to let the
Board and technical staff know about increasing concern in western
Colorado concerning irrigation practices and the appropriation of
return flow.

MR.. STAPLETON: Thank you, Mr. Fischer. Apy further discussion?
(No response.)

The motion now before the Board, with the elimination of the streams.in
Eagle County, would the proposer of the motion and the second agree to
the incorporation of the language that Mr. Beise suggested, which
r. - incidentally has been approved by Mr. Helton of our staff? .Would that
be satisfactory?

MR.. FURNEAUX: Yes.

MR.. SPARKS: I might add on that point, Mr. Chairman, that stipulation
states nothing more than what the existing law is today. We're just
saying that we're junior to senior decrees.

I

. .
The addition there is that, as Mr. Beise pointed out, there's never a
major project conducted without some major changes taking place as
construction goes on, so we've agreed that our decrees as they
eventually are awarded by the court are junior, and I consider that to
be the law, and.that's the law for every junior appropriator, and as
evidence of our good faith that continues to be our belief, we:would
stipulate that that is a fact. ,

MR..~ SHERMAN: Mr. Chairman, I was going to follow.up on_what Larry just
mentioned. I wanted ,to check with the Attorney General's Office and
the 'Division of Wildlife .as to whether they had any specific problems '
with the language that .Mr. Beise suggested.

MR.. ROBBINS: From the Attorney General's standpoint, I have no problems
with the ~anguage if that's what the Board wants to do. .It's certainly
their prerogative to condition these decrees in any way they want, and
if it's the-Board's determination, they wish to condition them upon
subsequent corrections in the descrirytions of Fryingpan-Arkansas Proj-
ect features, I certainly have no problem with that,

MR.. SHERMAN: Is that a departure in any way from what we've done in
the past?

MR..BEISE: We've done it in the past.

. ~ ..
MR. ROBBINS: We have stipulated in the past on Gageby Creek that by the
filing of Gageby Creek we. ~id not preclu~e the Fort Lyon Canal from
entering-into the winter water storage appropriation. ..Mr; Beise felt
more ,comfortable having that:in the decree.

-11-