Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I'm a little concerned about this whole procedure, too. I share the <br />same cOncern. I think we have been debating Williams Fork clOse to a <br />year. And if resolution means continued compromise, maybe we have <br />reached an impasse. <br /> <br />Over and beyond that, I am concerned with the intent of the legislation. <br />Any time we hit a hard rock with a lot of opposition and resolution needs <br />to be made somewhere else, I think this will soon become apparent to' <br />everyone, and each opposition becomes increasingly more difficult, and <br />the Board will have a more difficult position. It will take you an end- <br />less amount of time and us an equal amount of time. Logistically, you <br />can almost kill us. I think we need to take a look at some of these <br />things. And as all of you have mentioned, we have gone through the <br />Water Board and the Grand county COmmissioners, and we have attempted to <br />resolve this in an equitable manner. And as Larry has said many times: <br />"What is a reasonable decree?" And if that is the debate, I doubt that <br />you are going to hear professional opinions other than from the Attorney <br />General's office and possibly Grand County, because you are probably not <br />going to get two biologists to agree to the finite degree you are talk- <br />ing about in this case. <br /> <br />As far as the NUS' study being better than any'made by the Division of <br />Wildlife or others, here again, that is questionable. They may have <br />made mOre studies but certainly not better. And we could get into this <br />whole ball of wax. If it's necessary, that is fine; if it's not, let <br />us know how to proceed. <br /> <br />Thank you. <br /> <br />MR. STAPLETON: Well, thank you. Let me Just say that, again, we have <br />the prerogative, if we want, of just accepting the staff's recommendation. <br />That may be a way to go. I don't want to prejudge. I have no idea how <br />this board feels on that. But this is the first one that has come past <br />challenging the recommendations of the staff, and I think it ought to be <br />heard on some basis. We may then develop some guidelines for future use <br />in which we say': "You argue the thing in front of the staff, and, unless <br />there is something clearly irregular about it, we are going to accept <br />the staff's decision." <br /> <br />But I think we ought to at least get into it to understand, in the first <br />place, what some of these considerations are rather than just accepting <br />some recommendations. At least I don't know a lot of the bases for the <br />recommendations or the differences of opinion. But we are not going to <br />spend a week or a month hearing streamflow arguments between people that <br />have differences of opinion. This one has gone on a long time. I think <br />everybody seems prepared to litigate the matter if they don't get some <br />proper resolution. And I would like to see what kind of a record we can <br />make on the first one and then adopt some regulations and procedures as <br />a result. <br /> <br />MR. JACKSON: That is fine. <br /> <br />MR. STAPLETON: I'will entertain a motion that the preliminary reCOmmen- <br />dations on Grand county be presented to the Board at the next meeting as <br /> <br />-31-:- <br />