Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />final approval be approved. All those in favor signify by saying "Aye." <br />(Ayes.) Those opposed? (NO response.) <br /> <br />So ordered. <br /> <br />(See Appendix A.) <br /> <br />NOW, on the preliminary recommendations, I regret to report that the <br />controversy about the Grand County streamflows has not been resolved. <br />The Denver Water Board hashired a consultant. That consultant, for <br />various reasons, was unable to report until very recently. The wildlife <br />Division received the report recently and there has been no resolution <br />to that controversy. <br /> <br />We always prefer that on the preliminary approvals that we have a meeting <br />of minds, if possible. The Denver Water Board asked that these recom- <br />mendations be deferred at this time until the meeting on March 14. I, <br />personally, am agreeable to this if the Board is also. But I might state <br />for the edification of everyone that on March 14 if there is not agree- <br />ment--and there very well may not be--this matter will be on the agenda <br />for discussion and whatever it takes to resolve it. I have talked with <br />Felix about it; and, although I think we are both reluctant to do that, <br />I would like, if the Board is in agreement, to consider everything except <br />the Grand County streamflows for preliminary approval at this time, with <br />the understanding that the ones that are being passed today will be <br />heard in any shape they are in at the next meeting without any further <br />extension. We have extended these over a period of at least 8 months to <br />a year now already, and this is the last extension I am going to have <br />any part of. <br /> <br />MR. SPARKS: To supplement what the Chairman said, we have received <br />recommendations just last week from the Denver Water Board concerning <br />these streamflows. We have not yet had an opportunity to consult fully <br />with the wildlife Division concerning the recommendations made by the <br />Denver Water Board. Suffice it to say that there are some sUbstantial <br />differences in some cases. We are being pressured by the county Com- <br />missioners of Grand County to move ahead with these appropriations. <br />Grand county is very much irt-favor,of them. <br /> <br />However, by delaying it another Board <br />in the way of an appropriation date. <br />year, we would still only have a 1979 <br /> <br />meeting, we will not lose anything <br />No matter what time we file this <br />appropriation. <br /> <br />This is a critical matter. We have federal agencies involved in <br />connection with the plans of the city of Denver to develop water which <br />it already has a decree to and which it has long planned to divert. As <br />you may have read in the papers lately, the federal agencies have <br />unilaterally decided to suspend their permission in connection with the <br />plans of Denver to develop the additional water from the Williams Fork <br />and various tributaries in that area, all of which are located in <br />Grand county. <br /> <br />I would point out that, since the Denver Water Board has at least two <br />representatives here today, it is critical that some agreement be <br />reached that is an amicable agreement. Otherwise, we may be tied up in <br />indefinite litigation again. As far as we are concerned, and as far as <br /> <br />-19- <br />