Laserfiche WebLink
<br />1 <br /> <br />I think the farmers were the first conservationists in the stat~ of <br />Colorado. A lot of them have been cons~rvationists a.~ong.time before <br />it became so popular. I know a lot of farmers that like to fish and <br />I don't think farmers are opposed to minimum stream flows. They are <br />opposed to losing their water. I would suggest this matter be deferred <br />until some kind of negotiations have been undertaken to see whether or <br />not there is some possible accommo~ation between the two interests. <br /> <br />Mr. Stapleton: We will be getting a report back on the Black Gore and <br />Gore Creek hopefully by the next meeting. I would entertain a motion <br />that we defer this matter on the Cache La Poudre until the next meeting <br />too. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Rolly, did you want to say something on this at this point? <br /> <br />Mr. Rollv Fischer: Mr. Chairman and members of the board, I am Rolly <br />Fischer. I am with the Colorado River Water Conservation District. I <br />would like to comment at the outset that the River District was instru- <br />mental in the draft of Senate Bill 97. However, Mr. Chairman, as I <br />recall, the intention of Senate Bill 97 was to have an early test of the <br />constitutionality. We have not yet had that test and I would like to <br />comment here that the River District Board and River District counties <br />are not of a single mind in the matter of minimum stream flows on the <br />western slope streams that are listed in today's agenda. For instance, <br />we have one director who feels that these minimum stream flows in <br />Senate Bill 97 are not constitutional. Pitkin county feels that the <br />minimum stream flows should be vigorously pursued and adjudicated. <br />This would apply to the Crystal River. I cite these as examples of the <br />River District not being of a single mind. <br /> <br />We do want to commend the state board staff, especially Mr. Duane Helton, <br />for arranging for the Division of Wildlife to come to our January board <br />meeting. However, the Division of Wildlife's presentation was not <br />given enough time to be clear to the River District Board, especially <br />a couple of attorneys on that board, and at least one engineer, as to <br />how minimum stream flows are arrived at on a scientifically objective <br />basis. Consequently, Mr. Marvin Smith gave generouslY of his time and <br />met with me and one River District director to discuss this matter <br />further. I would like to thank Marv here for the outstanding job he <br />did with me in explaining how these minimum flows are arrived at. <br /> <br />The River District Board, however, recognizes some problems. One River <br />District director feels that the appropriation by a junior right of <br />more than the average minimum flows, that is, over appropriating the <br />stream at certain times of the year is to the detriment of future <br />beneficial application for a decree that is perhaps more the classic <br />appr.opriation of exercising some dominion over the water. The River <br />District Board feels that there is a problem. I think the Cache La <br />Poudre people expressed it very well, about the future change in point <br />of diversion of an existing senior with the concept of changing the <br />regimen of the stream in relationship to a junior. That junior in this <br />case being the minimum stream flow or the aesthetic or fish flow that <br />is in the stream. There is a great deal of concern about this. <br /> <br />-22- <br />