My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD00744
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
1-1000
>
BOARD00744
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 2:53:49 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 6:43:45 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
7/10/1973
Description
Agenda or Table of Contents, Minutes, Memos
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.
/
91
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 />effectiveness of Senate Bill 97 as a vehicle for appropriating water <br />for fish uses. <br /> <br />Mr. Geissinqer: Mr. Chairman. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Mr. Stapleton: Yes. sir. <br /> <br />Mr. Geissinqer: As we all know. the House of Representatives on its <br />seconq reading tried to present this question to the Supreme Court of <br />the state of Colorado. The .Supreme Court declined jurisdiction. I <br />could agree with Clarence that I hope somebody will raiae the question <br />at an early date so we can get this problem solved once and for all. <br />The court will then have to take jurisdiction if there is a proper case <br />presenteq. We will get a decision and then we will know whether or not <br />we will need a constitutional amendment. I expect Tam Scott to contest <br />it. <br /> <br />Mr. Stapleton: You have met him. have you? <br /> <br />Mr. Saunders: He is going to contest the thing so that you get it <br />settled once and for all. I hope. <br /> <br />Mr. Scott: I thought that you would be the contestant. <br /> <br />Mr. Stapleton: Are there any further questions or comments from members <br />of the audience? <br /> <br />Mr. Feast: Mr. Chairman. I am Cleland Feast. The way I look at it. the <br />term "minimum flow" is a misnomer. A minimum flow is an appropriation <br />of any flow under a certain priority date which is of the day that was <br />established. And in accordance with that. then if you find it as a <br />beneficial use it is an appropriation rather than a minimum flow. Most <br />people when they think of minimum flow they think that if there are 30 <br />second feet in the stream and somebody has a 20 second foot right. the <br />minimum flow of 30 second feet will take away from that 20 second foot <br />right. And that is all wrong as I understand the purpose and intent of <br />the bill. The bill is to set an appropriation for fish. And that is <br />their priority that nobody can take away from them. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Mr. Geissinqer: I think that is a correct statement. <br /> <br />Mr. Berthelson: How many second feet are we filing for? <br /> <br />Mr. Sparks: Each segment of the stream has a different amount with <br />seasonal variations. <br /> <br />-55- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.