BOARD01415

• Board Meeting Date: 11/1/1978
• Description: Agenda, Minutes, Resolution
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Meeting

I

I

Unanimously carried.

(see Appendix A)

MR. SHERMAN: Mr. Chairman, can I add a postscript to this Hunter
Creek controversy?

MR. STAPLETON: Surely.

MR. SHERMAN: I think the Board ought to know that the GOvernor and I
were immensely impressed by the cooperation and the good-faith efforts
of the parties here. I really can't say more about Tommy Thomson and
Chuck Beise and the Southeast Board, nor about the good-faith efforts
and cooperation of the Aspen City council ,and the Pitkin county Com-
missioners and Mr. Musick, Mr'. Schwartz and Mr.. Leavenworth.. They really
have walked the last mile to try to find a way of resolving this .
conflict.

But the unsung hero of this is Larry Sparks. He really found the
solution. When the going was very hopeless and things seemed impossible,
Larry came up with the solutions that eventually resolved this contro-
versy. And he stuck with it. He was his nasty, rough self; but in the
end, believe me, it was his creativity and experience and knowledge
that made the difference. And we really owe a debt of gratitude to
Larry Sparks.

MR. STAPLETON: I am glad to have that noted. I guess he is a lovable
old grouch. Is that right? (Laughter.)

MR. SPARKS: My grandchildren don't think I'm a grouch.

(Laughter. )

MR. JACKSON: Mr. Chairman, may I add, for the Southeastern Board and
certainly the other portions of Colorado, that I could not add to any-
thing Harris has said. It is all very true, and it was a marvelous
job, Larry, and we appreciate it very much.

MR. SPARKS: Thank you.

MR. STAPLETON: We will have to frame the minutes of this meeting for
Mr. Sparks. You had better get them out in a hurry.

All right, if we can then modestly go to the next item on the agenda,
that is the consideration of appropriations for streamflows. First,
the final recommendations that were previously approved in preliminary
form. You have them there. There are three pages of them. Is there
any discussion? (NO response.)

Has anything happened since we approved them preliminarily?

MR. SPARKS: Mr. Chairman, we had some spirited debate, as the Board
will recall, for several meetings past concerning the appropriations in
Jackson County. The question was whether or not a lake is a lake. Our
staff, as well as the staff of the Division of Wildlife, has reviewed
again the previous recommendations. They have taken into consideration
the objections raised by people in Jackson county. Certain of the
previous recommendations have been omitted from the list now before.

-19-