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 />43 <br /> <br />Creek, L Creek, Michigan River, Williams Fork and the Yampa <br /> <br /> <br />River drains. And we did receive correspondence yesterday <br /> <br /> <br />from attorneys representing the Jackson County Water <br /> <br /> <br />Conservancy District and I believe Bill's going to make a <br /> <br /> <br />comment. <br /> <br />MR. McDONALD: The first comment is I think that <br /> <br /> <br />you each have in your folders the letter that Dan just <br /> <br /> <br />referenced. It's dated July I, addressed to the Board on <br /> <br /> <br />letterhead from the law firm of Fischer, Brown, Huddleson &. <br /> <br /> <br />Gunn. We stuck that in this.morning, didn't we? <br /> <br />MR. }lliRRIMAN: That's correct. <br /> <br /> <br />MR. McDONALD: This thing here (indicating). <br />Everybody find a copy? The July 1 letter makes reference to <br /> <br />earlier correspondence of January concerning essentially the <br /> <br />same issue. I'd have two main comments. <br /> <br />The staff has reviewed the matter with our legal counsel <br /> <br />number one, and number two, we have not had an opportunity <br /> <br /> <br />to sit down with the people from the involved conservancy <br /> <br /> <br />district since they first corresponded with us in the latter <br /> <br /> <br />part of January. <br /> <br />Lt would be the staff's position on it nonetheless <br /> <br />that the preliminary recommendations ought to be approved <br /> <br /> <br />by the Board today and advanced to the final status subject <br /> <br />to, however, the staff sitting down with counsel for the <br /> <br /> <br />concerned conservancy district and whomever from the <br />