Laserfiche WebLink
<br />MR. GORMLEY: Seconded. <br /> <br />MR. STAPLETON: It has been regularly moved and seconded. Is there <br />any further discussion? (NO response.) <br /> <br />All those in favor signify by saying "Aye." (Ayes.) Those opposed? <br />(NO response.) <br /> <br />The final recommendations are approved. <br /> <br />(See Appendix A.) <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Now, we have an old saw here in the Grand county preliminary recom- <br />mendations. I will entertain a motion that they be approved. <br /> <br />MR. SPARKS: I think on those, Mr. Chairman, we merely move them over <br />for final consideration at the next meeting. <br /> <br />MR. STAPLETON: I gather we have a communication from the Denver <br />Water Department in regard to this, is that correct, and the Grand <br />county Commissioners? <br /> <br />MR. SPARKS: That is correct, Mr. Chairman. We have received a lot <br /> <br />of communications over the years on the Grand County bit, and we do <br />have a specific communication from the Denver Board of Water Com-' <br />missioners concerning these particular minimum streamflows. We have <br />had a number of meetings, going back now over a period of a year, <br />trying to resolve some of the problems connected with the Grand <br />County filings. We have mOd~fied,virtually all of these original <br />recommendations to some extent. But further modifications are re- <br />quested by the Denver Water Department.- We asked them to give us <br />their specific recommendations so' that we could consider those <br />between now and the next Board meeting. We will consider those <br />recommendations between now and the next Board meeting. <br /> <br />At this time, the motion would simply be to move them over for final <br />consideration at the next Board meeting. And at that time, we would <br />get down to the specific arguments if we are not able to resolve this <br />problem before the next meeting. Then the Board will have to resolve <br />it at that meeting for final consideration. <br /> <br />I would like to observe that the minimum streamflow recommendations <br />will be a problem area for many years to come. This board has been <br />dedicated to attempting to establish reasonable min~mum streamflows. <br />We are having some problem with federal agencies that are in the 'same <br />field. While there are some people who think this board has been <br />quite arbitrary, they should try to deal with the Fish and Wildlife I <br />Service. From time to time, we are in considerable disagreement with <br />the Fish and Wildlife Service about minimum streamflows; although, <br />eventually, we have had a fairly good working relationship with the <br />federal agencies. We probably have had more trouble with the Fish <br />and Wildlife Service than any other agency. We consider that some <br />of their recommendations are unreasonable.. Not only that, but you <br />will recall that there was a federal filing for a 1,000 cfs as <br />minimum streamflow on the Yampa River, which we disagree with to' a <br />considerable extent. <br /> <br />-24- <br />