Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Mr. pickrel: Is that measurement <br />collection system will be put in? <br /> <br />made where the horth side dam and <br />At that point? <br /> <br />Mr. Sparks: Yes. there will be a measuring point at the collection <br />system. It is very. very expensive to put in these measurement and <br />release structures at the collection system. We are talking about a I <br />good many hundred thousands of dollars. The annual operation of these <br />releases will be quite expensive also. So the things we are doing for <br />minimum stream flows will cost money. A lot of money. as times goes on. <br /> <br />Mr. Ford: Wasn't this cost figured in the project? <br />Mr. Sparks: Yes. it's a project expense. <br />Mr. Ford: Not a state expense? <br />Mr. Sparks: That is correct. It is a project expense. <br /> <br />Mr. Stapleton: Are there any further questions from the members of the <br />board? Mr. Saunders had a question. <br /> <br />Mr. Saunders: One comment. Fred Kroeger put his finger on the thing. <br />Originally. Sparks and Moses got together a constitutional amendment to <br />cover this problem. And then a group of water lawyers from allover the <br />state. the most prominent water lawyers in the state. met and I was one <br />Qf those people invited to that meeting. and I was the only one to uphold <br />Sparks' position. The rest of them wanted to go a statutory method. <br />Finally since it was a majority consensus to do that. Sparks and Moses <br />agreed to go along with them and said if this is the consensus of all <br />the water lawyers. let's do it this way. <br /> <br />Now Senate Bill 97 is something different than it appears here as has <br />been represented. I am sort of concerned about this. This simply autho- <br />rizes the making by the state of Colorado all the appropriations of <br />water for in stream uses without diverting the water out of the natural <br />stream. And the whole constitutional question turns on the word "divert." <br />And that is why there is every reason to believe that the constitional- <br />ity of this will be upheld. This simply gives an, opportunity for a state <br />agency to make an instream appropriation that will go before the court <br />and show that this is going to be a beneficial use. the amount of water <br />needed. and that it will produce beneficial results. Now. I hope that <br />there will be a contest on this because our understanding as Freddy has <br />expressed it. was that we would try to get a guinea pig ,case going very <br />quickly~ get to the Supreme Court and get a determination of the <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />-54- <br />