Laserfiche WebLink
<br />behalf don't have to. It's simply individuals appearing in a paid <br />capacity representing an interest. <br /> <br />- . - <br />MR. STAPLETON: This would be attorneys, directors of conservancy <br />districts, lobbyists and the like. Things have changed. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />. . <br />MR. ROBBINS: Just for. the .record-I might .add, it appears that the - <br />legislature is giving consideration to changing that particular pro- <br />vision as it. relates to board and commissions. <br /> <br />MR. STAPLETON: - I'm going.to permitany~ne.to speak without having <br />registered today unless I'm informed to the contrary by the Attorney <br />General after the noon recess. Is that satisfactory? <br /> <br />MR. ROBBINS: Satisfactory. <br /> <br />MR. STAPLETON: All right. I suppose we won't get any,further comments <br />now from anybody, but in the event there are further comments, would <br />somebody like to make them at this time? <br /> <br />- . <br />MR. KROEGER: Do we inquire on his request? <br /> <br />MR. STAPLETON: I want to get all the comments, if I can, and we've <br />made a note of Mr. Beise's.proviso. . . <br /> <br />. . <br />Mr. Fischer has registered; I'm sure, so you may_appear. <br /> <br />MR. FISCHER: Mr. Stapleton, Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, I'm <br />Roland Fischer, secretary~manager of the-Colorado River Water Conserva- <br />tion District. - <br /> <br />Concerning Mesa Cou~t~,.on page one of .the final stream recommendations, <br />West Creek, Water D~v~s~on4, headwaters to the confluence of the - <br />Dolores, we would:like to note for the consideration.of the Board, and- <br />also make generally the same comment under an Eagle County: stream - <br />I understand Eagle County has been continued to another time, but <br />nevertheless, we'd like to comment. <br /> <br />. <br />Let's take first,-if we may, West Creek. We'd:like to observe that we <br />believe that the stream is totally appropriated. It's run dry every. - <br />year, and perhaps the technical staff might consider that the standard <br />from the headwaters to the confluence might be outside the intent of <br />Senate Bill 87 because any.water at the confluence, we think, is probably <br />totally return flows, and there are probably many transfers, formally <br />and informally, among the water users on West Creek. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />. - <br />We think that very probable every drop is used. We do submit that. for. <br />consideration of the Board and the technical staff. This also occurs <br />below the confluence: of East and West Brush-Creeks. Probably 15 <br />second feet of diverse. water rights are involved, and the total flow is <br />appropriated, and we believe these minimum flows-as claimed below the <br />confluence of East and West Brush Creeks are probably return flows from <br />upstream irrigati9n. <br /> <br />-5- <br />