Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />1 <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />38 <br /> <br />MR. JOHNSTON: That's why I don't have any problem. <br /> <br /> <br />I think it's -- I agree with you. I don't have any problem <br /> <br /> <br />with what they've done in the past. The question is is when <br /> <br />an exchange, a new exchange, is applied for or a new exchange <br /> <br /> <br />is made that is detrimental to the minimum stream flows, why <br /> <br /> <br />is this Board tying its hands so that it cannot enter into <br /> <br /> <br />a protection of downstream users or the minimum stream flow <br /> <br />right? <br /> <br />Why don't we limit them to their flows or to the <br /> <br />exchanges that they've made? My suggestion last time is <br /> <br />that the Attorney General should be writing these up so that <br />they recognize the exchanges that have been made and not <br />using such broad language that bars this Board from inter- <br /> <br />vention. <br /> <br />CHAIRMAN KROEGER: Mr. Simpson? <br />MR. LARRY SIMPSON: Larry Simpson, Northern Colorad <br /> <br /> <br />I strongly support Mr. Robbins' position in this and would <br /> <br /> <br />suggest that if such stipulation had not been arrived at on <br /> <br /> <br />the Poudre River, litigation involving that river would be <br /> <br /> <br />going on for quite a number of years beyond now without <br /> <br /> <br />any minimum stream flows. <br /> <br />These are management tools that have to be recognized. <br /> <br />There may be modifications made to them hopefully on a <br /> <br />compromise basis, but historical management tools and these <br /> <br />rivers have to be recognized and any minimum stream flow <br />