BOARD01567

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

I

permitted to be to object to or to protest against any changes in
point of diversion." That motion passed, with one director voting uno".
This is the original Senate Bill No. 413 as submitted by Senator
Anderson. We have not spoken to the question of Senate Bill No. 413,
as amended, and since been passed to the House Agricultural Committee.
Further, and perhaps just as significantly, the river district board
passed a motion urging the Colorado Water Conservation Board to be more
meaningful and realistic in its determination of minimum stream flows
and lake levels for which it proposes to make water rights applications
in the water court.

The motion passed with Director Scott voting "no." The second -- the
third motion, I should say, directs that statements of opposition be
filed in the water courts if minimum stream flows or lake level applica-
tions filed by the Colorado Water Conservation Board are unreasonable
or unrealistic. Again, the motion passed, with Director Scott voting
"no."

The thrust, I believe, goes back to the statement we made in February,
that the Division of Wildlife has so far not objectively explained to
the board of the Colorado River Water Conservation District so that it
can understand how minimum stream flows are arrived at on a scientif-
ically objective basis. This bothers our board from the standpoint of
future changes in points of diversion and changes in use with the
rights of a junior being protected as to the status of the stream, the
day he filed his application.

I would like to summarize the statement prepared by'counsel,'which we
have distributed to, or have given to you, Mr. Chairman -- this is
dated May the first. '~he right which was granted to this board in 1973
to obtain by adjudication, or otherwise, instream water rights for the
protection of the environment was, by its language, predicated on
certain important considerations. Among them are the following:

A recognition of a need to correlate the activities of mankind with a
reasonable preservation of the environment.

Irrespective of the recommendations of the divisions of wildlife, parks
and outdoor recreation, the appropriations for such purposes are
limited to those necessary to correlate man's activities with a reason-
able environment.

I

The statutory recognition of instream appropriation as a beneficial use
of water, assuming the legislation to be constitutional, speaks only
to minimum flows required to preserve the natural environment to a
reasonable degree.

This board has authorized its attorney to make filings for environmental
purposes in Water Division No.5, Pitkin County, on Hunter Creek and
its tributaries, in excess of the historic minimum flows of that
stream. You are today to consider appropriations for flows in the
Crystal River, likewise in excess of historic minimum flows.

-11-