BOARD01567

• Board Meeting Date: 5/1/1975
• Description: Agenda or Table of Contents, Minutes, Memos
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Meeting

I

Mr. Sparks: They have the right to make the last mistake.

Mr. Moses: I might say for Mr. Burr's information that we are presently
protesting a change of point of diversion on the Fryingpan. I have been
advised by the attorney for the people who are attempting to get the
change, that if the State's minimum streamflow appropriation which has
already been granted prevents the change which the owner of water
rights wants to make, he will challenge the constitutionality in the
Supreme Court.

Mr. ~arks: We should urge him to do so. We would like to get it
deci d.

Mr. Moses:
say this is
course.

We can't give you a timetable, but I think it is fair to
on the way to the Supreme Court and will be decided in due

Mr. Kroe~er: Larry, I want to ask about the Dolores situation, this
seventy-eight second feet. I am not real clear just how this works.
It is my understanding in the Dolores project that fifty second foot
releases have been allocated in the allotment of water in the reser-
vol~. Should fifty second feet not be present in the reservoir on
cer~ain years, they would have to share the shortages along with the
other users.

I

Mr. Sparks: That is correct. In the decree we will ask that a pro-
vision be made that the release is in conformity with the operating
procedures for the Dolores project.

Mr. Burr: Well, Larry, it was brought out in the meeting, in our
Board meeting, that on the Fryingpan we didn't anticipate any objection
at all to our water right. Now they are coming in with a lawsuit. It
was brought out in the meeting that we didn't anticipate any objection
at all.

Mr. Sparks: There was no objection to our filing.

Mr. Burr: What is this lawsuit you are talking about?

Mr. S~rks: We are not the only ones objecting. Other appropriators
are objecting also. An attempt is being made to take old irrigation
decrees and convert to a year-round use. That is what we object to.
Such a change would also diminish the storage in the Ruedi Reservoir.
Therefore, the southeastern district which has the decree for that
reservoir is protesting it.

Mr. Robbins: Mr. Sparks, 1 would just like to say to the members of
the Board, from the Attorney General's standpoint, the minimum flow
provisions are the law of the State of Colorado. It is not, in my
opinion, the Board's position to be determining its constitutionality.
Any minimum flows that are approved by the Board, if the law is declared
to be unconstitutional, will be void. I don't see it as the position
of the Board to wait until such time as there is a challenge to its

-9-