My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD00453
CWCB
>
Chatfield Mitigation
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
1-1000
>
BOARD00453
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 2:50:18 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 6:38:17 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
2/26/1975
Description
Agenda or Table of Contents, Minutes, Resolution
Board Meetings - Doc Type
Meeting
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
100
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />1 <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br />require ~inimum stream flows would virtually kill this cooperation. <br /> <br />Many years ago when I was a boy in Greeley, irrigators were competitors <br />for water and you would see reservoirs that were empty and crops that <br />were dry. Now they are cooperators. They work together to the better- <br />ment of agriculture in the area. Maybe your question is whether agri- <br />culture isn't more important than game and fish. We believe that those <br />55,000 acres of prime farmland are very important to our community. <br />For this reason, we would very resp~ctfully ask that you not put a <br />minimum stream flow on that river so that we can continue-eo utilize <br />the maximum use of the waters. If you do, then we have to kill our <br />exchange program. We can lose as many as 10,000 acres of irrigated <br />farmland in this valley. In order to, exchange with North Poudre..up <br />here, we could keep the river high enough fram here to here. To justify <br />the exchange the North Poudre is going to have to find some place else <br />to get the water. We think it is a great detriment to the community. <br /> <br />Gentlemen, I appreciate your time. Do you have any questions? <br /> <br />Mr. Hobbs: I probably may not have understood part of what you said. <br />Are you arguing that this stream be completely exempted from minimum <br />stream flows so you can in fact dry up any part of the stream at any <br />point in the future? <br /> <br />Mr. Kochenburger: No, because that stream is not going to be dried up <br />any more with a minimum stream flow than it is now. In fact, it will <br />be dried up very much less because right now for example we put water <br />in here to take care of this swap here and we can't do it. So this <br />thing is going to dry up and it will go back to the old days when it <br />was dry. What we are saying here is that in order to make an exchange <br />we have to make it in such a manner that it will not injure any junior <br />appropriator. Now, Game and Fish will be the most junior appropriator <br />on the stream, granted, but we will have to leave their minimum in in <br />order to make the exchange because they would be injured if we removed <br />it to the point of drying up, I suppose. <br /> <br />Mr. Hobbs: That's my question. But I would like to know what the <br />injury might be to other kinds of interests besides agricultural. <br /> <br />Mr. Kochenburger: Let me explain to you about injury to the stream. <br />1870 is when we started to make the diversions from the river. People <br />have been fishing and using the river since 1860. It has been dried up <br />since 1860. What we are trying to do is rehabilitate the river better <br />than it was in 1860. And this stream is not injured. Sure, down there <br />by the sewer plant fishing isn't too good. <br /> <br />(laughter) <br />Mr. Sparks: If that's the case, your sewer plant is out of compliance. <br />:'(more laughter) <br />Mr. Kochenburger: I don't know. We grow crops with the water. <br /> <br />"~9- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.