Laserfiche WebLink
<br />or make a change in the point of diversion or change in type of use <br />which reduces.the flow of the stream and makes.it impossible for him <br />to get his'junior appropriation. But it does not affect existing <br />appropriations so long as there. is no attempt to change that earlier <br />appropriation. <br /> <br />MR. VANDEMOER: Mr. Chairman, could I add something? As an irrigator, I <br />and as Ray said, we have been over this many times, but I think people <br />on streams where there is irrigation water should know that if these <br />go through,' they had better have their housekeeping in order on that <br />stream, because if they do want to make any changes in points of <br />diversion or change their water rights in any way, they will have a <br />new member in the battle with them. In other words, the state would be <br />in there with a 1976 right. I don't think that's all bad; But I can <br />tell you that on the poudre River right now, they are trying to figure <br />out about four hundred ways to change and move water in advance of these <br />minimum stream flow adjudications or whatever you call them, so that <br />they will cover the river before this happens to them; Your rights are <br />still there, that's true, but you won't be able to move them around <br />. and handle them the same <;lS you have in the.past. I say you won't be <br />able to. .1 suppose you would be able to do that. Is that right? <br /> <br />. . . <br />MR. ROBBINS: I assume this Board: could instruct whoever is representing <br />it in court to. either file or not file a statement of opposition to: <br />something that would affect its rights. In other words, if the state <br />is to protect its rights, it is my understanding that it has to go into <br />court as any other water user and file a statement of opposition to <br />any proposed change. If the state should neglect to file that state- <br />ment of opposition and to allow the change to occur, I don't see how it <br />has any extra legal authority at some later date, having failed to <br />exercise its rights. . <br /> <br />MR. MOSES: I might bring the Board and, the audience up to date on one <br />case where we did go in and assert the state's minimum flow decree. <br />There has been a recent development.. The materials were sent to me and <br />should have been sent to Mr. Robbins. I forwarded them to him yesterday, <br />so he will get. them some time next week, I think. This is what we call <br />the Miller-Nichols case on the Fryingpan. <br /> <br />An amended application has now been filed where instead. of asking for <br />year-round use, the applicant proposes to construct a small reservoir <br />and store some of his historic and comsumptive use, of which he has an <br />ample supply, and release water to the stream in the wintertime to make <br />up for the winter depletion his wells would cause, which is the procedure <br />we recommend, and which will protect the winter minimum stream flow <br />which the state has in the Fryingpan. <br /> <br />This is the kind of watchdog role that I think the state is going to. <br />have to play in the future on any provosed changes. It doesn't <br />necessarily mean that the changes can t be made. But this is going to <br />cause some additional expense to Miller-Nichols, b~t it~s a procedure <br />which most other people who wanted to change irrigation rights. to a <br />year-round right had to follow in order to maintain the regimen of the <br />stream historically. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />-22- <br />