Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />are other agencies in the Department of Natural Resources besides the <br />Water Board which have a major interest in this policy statement. <br /> <br />I might add that Dave Robbins just reminded me that there are many of <br />these options that we ,have no quarrel with and that are not actually <br />applicable to Colorado. For instance, when some of the options say <br />that the federal government should try to force the states to adopt <br />minimum stream flow laws, we have already done that. . To try to force <br />states to adopt water planning agencies -- we did that-forty years ago. <br />Many of these things that they point out as a problem area have already <br />been accomplished in Colorado, but perhaps not in same other states. <br />For many of those options, we can ,merely say, ''We agree. We have done <br />this." A large number of them we can dispose of in that manner. <br /> <br />In my summary, I listed same of the major ones that we probably could <br />not agree with. Actually, many of the statements are like being for <br />motherhood. The President -is giving a rather. imperious lecture about <br />water conservation. We. have known:about water conservation for a <br />hundred years. But it is a proper statement:in the:President's policy. <br />So we are not in total disagreement, by any means. We have already <br />implemented a number of the .recommendations that 'are contained in those <br />options. - ,- <br /> <br />We can say that out of the hundred or so options that probably fifty of. <br />them we would have no disagreement with. The other fifty,. we will have <br />to give a _lot of study. By setting up a strong working policy group: <br />in each of these four areas -- and we have some:capable people in <br />Colorado that I think are willing:to devote some: time to this problem -- <br />within a short time, we could formulate a consensus throughout Colorado <br />which the Department of Natural Resources could adopt as a policy <br />position. : As .soon as that consensus .is reached, we want to circulate it <br />to the Board. - - <br /> <br />It is absolutely impossible at the hearing tomorrow to:arrive. at any <br />consensus or to present any intelligent analysis of- all these, options. <br />The Governor will set the stage for our general objections to the tenor <br />of the option papers. <br /> <br />MR. BENTON: What I was leading up to was: would there' by anything <br />wrong with some sort of a statement of opposition just from this Board <br />as we~l as from the Department of Natural Resources? <br /> <br />MR. SPARKS: No. There will be some internal disagreement, I'm sure, <br />in the Department of Natural Resources. I think it is only fair that if <br />the Colorado Water Conservation Board disagrees with the D~vision of. <br />Wildlife, as we occasionally do, (laughter) ~t~t we should say so. It <br />should be. expressed that there is a'disagreement and that'this -is the <br />position of the C6~orado.Water Conservation Board~ ' <br /> <br />MR. BENTON:. Larry, as far as this thing is concerned; we are getting <br />into the area of state's rights, it seems to me, in part of th1s. <br /> <br />MR. SPARKS: A large part of it. Right:. ~ <br /> <br />-13- <br />