Laserfiche WebLink
<br />downstream from McPhee. <br /> <br />Mr. Sparks: Except for a few miles below the dam, the rest of the area <br />is sparsely occupied. <br /> <br />Mr. Vandemoer: So, there is no takeout? <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Mr. Sparks: Irrigation takes place down around Gateway, but at that <br />point the San Miguel River has already entered. <br /> <br />Mr. Vandemoer: Now, on these others that we have had before on the <br />Eagle and Roaring Fork are the irrigation interests -- are those above <br />your addition there? <br /> <br />Mr. Sparks: There are numerous irrigation diversions on the Crystal <br />River. However, these decrees would be junior to all of those existing <br />diversions. <br /> <br />Mr. Vandemoer: Except, we get into those changes, points of diversion. <br /> <br />Mr. Sparks: Yes. <br /> <br />Mr. Vandemoer: I wonder, I don't know how the Board would feel, but I <br />would like to at least throw out -- I know the Senate is working on it <br />now, there is a bill, I don't know whether it is through or not, I <br />wonder if it would be possible to table these that have to do with <br />irrigation until we see what is going to happen in the Senate and the <br />House. I don't think that bill has significance as far as these par- <br />ticular rights are concerned. <br /> <br />Mr. S~arks: That bill provides that in the event that there are existing <br />pract1ces of exchanges, those existing practices must be incorporated <br />into any decree that we get. In other words, we recognize that those <br />practices are in existence and they will continue to be in existence <br />after the decree is granted. This goes to the objection that the Poudre <br />people had. The bill as it was originally introduced was completely <br />objectionable. The committee asked me to come over, and I testified on <br />the bill. Some changes were made and it now provides that whatever the <br />existing practices are, they will be confirmed and the decree granted <br />to us. The exchanges that are now going on would be permissible. <br /> <br />Mr. Vandemoer: You are saying if we go ahead there, Larry, that existing <br />exchanges would be covered. I don't want to vote for this, if we are <br />not going to be able to make exchanges. <br /> <br />Mr. S~arks: As I expressed to the committee, it was never the intent <br />of th1S Board to change any existing practices and therefore we could <br />fully concur that any existing practices be fully protected. This we <br />intend to do whether or not the legislature passes the legislation. <br /> <br />Mr. Vandemoer: Okay, I don't want to make a big scene on. this, but will <br />Fish and Game agree to this? <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />-6- <br />