Laserfiche WebLink
<br />express here today is the view of ninety percent of the Poudre water <br />users. <br /> <br />I would like to suggest that the board or its staff might in these <br />changing times enlarge their mailing list. You know, northern Colorado <br />has not generally come up here through its water users associations to <br />see what the board is doing because you have the very enviable reputation <br />of being vigilant in the protection of the water resources of the state 1 <br />of Colorado, and in the words of the statute, insuring the maximum <br />utilization of water. And I think Ell of us in northern Colorado have <br />assumed that such being your duty, there would be no reason to appear, <br />but to leave it up to you because you have very fine men on the board. <br />However, I realize that we are in times of changing social views and <br />we perhaps now have conflicting values that need to be heard from. The <br />maximum utilization of water which all of us in northern Colorado have <br />felt was an unquestioned social good is now in many instances being <br />questioned in your proposed Poudre appropriations. I would like to <br />explain why that is. <br /> <br />So I would suggest to you and to your staff that all along the Front <br />Range there are water users organizations that are concerned with the <br />rivers in those areas. And I or Mr. Phipps of the conservancy district, <br />or others could give you the names of these organizations and would be <br />glad to do so. I think it would be helpful if you did so because as a <br />matter of fact whatever happened in Glenwood Springs did not happen on <br />the Poudre. The only time that I learned of this proposed fish flow <br />was when Earl Phipps, who did get the notice, was good enough to advise <br />Mr. Seaworth and myself that this question was coming up. And so I <br />think it is desirable that we get the input at least so that we and <br />others similarily situated would be allowed to appear so that you can <br />get both sidesof the question before you make the recommendations which <br />you are called upon to make. The problem in this particular area, and <br />if I could, I would like to go into it at some depth because it is <br />extremely important to us. We realize that any appropriation here will <br />carry a 1975 date, as Mr. Moses suggests. We also recognize, and we <br />understand that the purpose of such an appropriation on behalf of the <br />Game and Fish Department or the people of the state of Colorado would <br />be to prevent for example a future change in point of diversion, or <br />things of this nature. I think we cannot worry too ~ch about future <br />appropriations on the Poudre because there is no appropriation on the <br />Poudre after about 1881 that is any good anyway. But a change in point <br />of diversion is an important thing. <br /> <br />Another thing that seems to me to be of as equal compelling importance <br />from'the standpoint of maximum utilization of water is what an appro. 1 <br />priation on behalf of the people for these purposes would do to our ' <br />exchange. To start with, I don't think that - we are going to suggest <br />that this board not encourage this appropriation for several reasons. <br />One, it won't do the people of the state of Colorado any good. In <br />the stretch of the river that we are considering there are points on the <br />river that have historically been dry and have been since 1881. Now, <br />by exchange, the points will change from time to time where the dryness <br />occurs.' No matter what appropriation is gotten as far as minimum <br />stream flows, the fact is that the minimum stream will not flow from <br /> <br />-13- <br />