Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br /> <br />" <br />Colorado, except the earlie~t decrees. i doubt that there has been any <br />time in the history of Colorado, in the last fifty years, at least, in <br />which waters were available to fill all the existing decrees in the <br />state. Decree holders have to take a reduction when the water is not <br />there, but that does not invalidate their decrees. The very nature of <br />the decrees is that if the water is there, they are filled in terms of <br />priority. That is all we are asking for. This does not automatically <br />preclude any changes in the stream. The only time that we have a right <br />to object is for future changes which would reduce our appropriation <br />below the minimum flow. The stream is considerably above that most of <br />the time. There are times when it drops below. I don't think that our <br />decree should be ridiculed because there are times when the water is <br />not available to fill it. If anyone is ridiculing that decree, he is <br />ridiculing every decree holder in the state of Colorado. There are <br />times when a majority of the decrees in the state cannot be filled. <br /> <br />On the other point about what we have done in connection with the suit <br />brought by Pitkin County, Pitkin County did file an action in the water <br />court joining this board as an involuntary plaintiff. The Pitkin County <br />commissioners are attempting to force this board to make certain filings <br />on the Roaring Fork and its tributaries according to the desires of the <br />Pitkin County commissioners. <br /> <br />We say that this board was vested without authority, not the Pitkin <br />County commissioners. This matter has been covered in at least two <br />previous board meetings, at which we indicated that the Attorney General <br />has filed a motion to dismiss that case. The case is still pending. <br />We don't believe that there is any way that Pitkin County or any other <br />group or individual can force us to exercise a discretionary authority. <br />We are contesting that attempt to make us an involuntary plaintiff in <br />that case. <br /> <br />Mr. Vandemoer: I don't think anybody on this board is saying that there <br />is anything wrong with the Game and Fish studies. I think we just have <br />one hangup, and I can't see why we can't solve it. I think Game and <br />Fish is ready to do it, and I know at least the irrigators on this <br />board wane to do it. What we have '';0 do is have Game and Fish and this <br />board agree some way that we can make these transfers that Fetcher <br />mentioned. I don't think there is anyone here that wants to do away <br />with minimum stream flows. I'm down on the South Platte and I would <br />like to have it running all the time. We have to have the right to <br />move that water. If we had earlier rights, we should be able to move <br />that headgate if we want to move it, and I can't see why we can't do <br />that right here some way. Isn't there some way? Going to the Supreme <br />I Court won't solve it. Isn't there a way to do this thing, where we <br />write something or agree to something, that we get around this point <br />that I mentioned? . <br /> <br />Mr. Sparks: No one ever had a constitutional right to move a decree. <br />It is a statutory right granted by the legislature and that right is <br />not being taken away. An appropriator still has the same right that <br />has existed throughout the history of this state. Any junior appro- <br />priator can protest change of point of diversion if he feels that he is <br /> <br />-15- <br />