Laserfiche WebLink
<br />It was my op~n~on,:and it still is, that .it"was unnecessary because we <br />cannot force the Fort Lyon:tocdivert water at any particular time .of <br />the year to maintain a seepage rate, if in fact that's what the Gageby <br />Creek flows come from, to maintain our flows, so I felt that it was a <br />legitimate stipulation. " ~ <br /> <br />We have not up until this point stipulated specifically to make our I <br />decrees subject to subsequent changes in point of.diversion and the <br />like, but in this particular instance, it seems to me that most of the <br />project features are already corrected, and as I understand, are already <br />constructed, and as I understand.the.language, we are simply talking <br />about allowing the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project through the Southeastern <br />District to conform the decrees representative of that pro~ect to the <br />actual physical features of the land,: and therefore, I don t see any <br />particular problem. . . ." <br /> <br />MR.. SHERMAN: Can we hear from the .Division 'of Wildlife on ~hat :point? <br /> <br />MR.. STAPLETON: Yes, Mr. Kochman. You heard the question, did you not, <br />of Mr. Sherman? <br /> <br />MR..~ KOCHMA~: .Mr. Chairman, 1 don't think I really understand the <br />question." , <br /> <br />MR.. STAPLETQN: <br /> <br />. <br />Mr. Sherman may go ahead. <br /> <br />MR.. SHERMAN: The question I was asking was, does the" Division -of <br />Wildlife have any problem with the specific .language that has been. <br />suggested by Mr. Beise? ,Isthe~e.anything in that .language that. would <br />in any way.cause you concern; and is there any precedential value to <br />that .that might "apply to:other minimum: stream flow consideratronsthat <br />this Board will make in the future? .".". . <br /> <br />MR.;' KOCHMAN: Mr. Sherman., I think the Division of. Wildlife ':s position <br />is one of.the advice of Mr, Robbins, as well as Mr. Sparks,~and we <br />realize that .any decree granted.on any one.of those streams would be <br />junior, and I think we can very well "accept that... . <br /> <br />If the wording would in some way in the future hamper the objective of <br />trying.to maintain a flow, a reasonable:flow in each .one of those <br />streams, I think we would oppose that wording. I don't believe.that's: <br />the intent of the wording, and if it was,.I think that we would oppose <br />it. <br /> <br />As far as set~ing a precedent, I think that the flexibility of the I <br />Board. in agreeing: to this wording is part:of the system that we're <br />involved in today, but I guess we ask ourselves as the State's wild- <br />life agency, will we ever really accomplish this objectiv.e of main- <br />taining flows. We think we will, .and I think this wording is ~ot going <br />to make that any less of a realistic objective. <br /> <br />MR.. ROBBINS: May I add, again, Mr. Chairman, it's my understanding of <br />the language that's been proposed that it allows the Southeastern Dis- <br />trict to conform its decrees .as the project is:finally constructed. <br /> <br />--12- <br />