Laserfiche WebLink
<br />That's about the status of it, unless there are some questions. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />MR. STAPLETON: Are there any questions? <br /> <br />MR. BURR: .Mr. Chairman, I would like to know what the ten thousand <br />feet on a dry year, with the seepage and so forth - wouldn't we still <br />have the trouble with the fish and trouble with the reservoir in <br />keeping a permanent pool there? It would go down so low that it wouldn't <br />really preserve the fish at all. <br /> <br />MR. SPARKS: We have to get far more water rights than are necessary <br />because of that very situation, because of the fluctuating cycle. We <br />did a reservoir study from the day that the reservoir gates closed and <br />repeated that on a historic basis to determine how much water would be <br />required to maintain a ten thousand foot pool. <br /> <br />To maintain the ten thousand feet, at times you must go above that. We <br />find that we have to go to around fourteen thousand a~ times. And then <br />we draw the pool down quite low in some years. The water rights that <br />we have are ac~ually much greater than what we would need in a normal <br />year to maintain ten thousand feet. <br /> <br />MR. BURR: But these water'rights do not hurt any other older water <br />rights on the river at all? <br /> <br />MR. SPARKS: Absolutely not. Any change has to be handled through the <br />court and under rather rigid conditions. Since we are ,representing the <br />state government, we expect some rigid conditions to be attached to the <br />transfe~. That's the reason we have had to buy water rights greatly in <br />excess of what we think are required. <br /> <br />MR. BURR: .This hinges, too, on the Catlin Ditch, whether they have a <br />right to run that, being a mutual ditch, the next in line generally has <br />the right to the use of the water, whether they can take the water down <br />into John Martin Reservoir. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />MR. SPARKS: We are only entitled to a change of use which does not <br />legally injure other appropriators. That's a fair premise. No diverter <br />should be entitled to change the pattern of use of water which injures <br />other appropriators. <br /> <br />There are some other conditions that are bothering us. It's a question <br />of whether we end up with a reasonable amount of what the taxpayers <br />have paid for. <br /> <br />MR. STAPLETON: Any further questions? <br /> <br />(No response) . <br /> <br />All right. Weill then proceed with the next agenda item which is a <br />'flood hazard information report on the Arkansas River and Wild Horse <br />Creek, and Holly, Colorado. We have previously had information on this. <br />It was furnished to us. As I understand it, this is a routine matter <br /> <br />-13- <br />