My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD00549
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
1-1000
>
BOARD00549
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 2:51:45 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 6:40:13 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
3/14/1979
Description
Agenda, 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.
/
66
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 />MR. JACKSON: Mr. Chairman, two questions: one, the letter from the <br />Grand County Commissioners refers to their desire to go to recommenda- <br />tions which are apparently even greater than the ones we have in front <br />of us today. Is that correct? <br /> <br />MR. SPARKS: That is correct., These have been changed <br />preliminary recommendations. They have been modified. <br />same recommendations that were before the Board's last <br /> <br />from the original <br />These are not the <br />meeting. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />MR. JA~KSON: All right, Mr. Chairman, then I guess the question for <br />you--I share some of Herb's concerns, and I share the concern of this <br />board sitting as a hearing body in some respects. I think that has <br />some real problems. <br /> <br />If these folks go to court later on, what is this hearing? Are they <br />starting fresh and disregarding the hearing, or is this hearing a basic <br />part of what they do in court? <br /> <br />MR. SPARKS: <br />mendatio.ns. <br /> <br />The court action would be on a contest of the final recom- <br />That would be in the Water Court. <br /> <br />MR. STAPLETON: I. think it would be a trial de novo. <br /> <br />MR. SPARKS: Absolutely. We are just making a filing. That is all we <br />are doing, and that initiates the court case. , At that time then the <br />Water Judge appoints--what they normally do is appoint a referee, and <br />the lawyers can argue about wheth~r or not the decree should be granted <br />and to what e~tent. <br /> <br />MR. JACKSON: Mr. Chairman, can we set a time limit, in that case? If <br />they do go to court, can we set a time limit and say, "We will hear the <br />interested par,ties for two hours, and that is it. "? <br /> <br />MR. STAPLETON: I think what we ought to do is find out, after the staff <br />meets again with the principals, where we stand; and then we will see <br />how much controversy we have. I have seen all the streamflow charts we <br />have had in the past, but I don't see any fish swimming b_eh,ind them or <br />dead. I don't have myself any feel for what is going on in the minimum <br />streamflows. I don't know what the factors are that are taken into <br />consideration--how cold the water is or how warm it gets. I'm sure there <br />are multiple factors that I don't even begin to understand. <br /> <br />So let's have the director come up with a recommendation by the 20th of <br />April as to meeting with these people and get the background of what <br />they have, and then we can know better how to plan their meeting in <br />Grand Junction, which we will be discussing later on, sometime in the <br />middle or late May. DO you have any objection to that? <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />MR. SPARKS: No. <br /> <br />MR. STAPLETON: All right, then I will have a motion. <br />MR. BARROWS: Mr. Chairman, I am Pete Barrows of the Division of wild,life. <br /> <br />-30- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.