Laserfiche WebLink
<br />being injured. This board would have no greater right than any other <br />junior appropriator. We are asking for no more or less. We want the <br />same riiht as every other appropriator. That does not destroy, per se, . <br />anybody s rights. The right to change a point of diversion is a limited <br />right. It is dependent upon circumstances which will not injure other <br />appropriators. Obviously, we cannot agree that we must consent to I <br />every change in point of diversion. That would nullify the existing <br />law. I realize that there is some strong sentiment against this law. <br />I.will not express a personal opinion on the matter since this is.not <br />the forum to debate the law. The forum is the Colorado General Assembly. <br />Whether we like it or not, is not a matter for the individual board <br />members to decide. We, as citizens, have a right to go to the legisla- <br />ture and ask that the law be changed. Until it is changed or repealed, <br />Jfeel that we have a moral and legal obligation to carry out the law. <br />This' is what we are attempting to do to the best of our ability. We <br />don't buy every figure the Division of Wildlife throws at us. We go <br />into a detailed hydrologic study of each stream. We have prepared charts <br />showing the stream condition in every case. When any recommendation is <br />. )Il8.de .by the staff, it has been thoroughly researched. We stand by the <br />recommendations that we have made. <br /> <br />Mr. Stapleton: Are there any further questions of any of the speakers? <br /> <br />(No response.) <br /> <br />Mr. Stapleton: Are there any members of the audience who would like to <br />amplify any of the questions and answers that have been issued so far <br />on this subject? <br /> <br />(No response.) <br /> <br />Mr. Stapleton: I would like the record to reflect that we have three <br />letters addressed to the board in various ways, one from the Pitkin <br />Coupty Board of County Commissioners supporting the minimum stream flow <br />recommendations in the Crystal River, another from Trout Unlimited, <br />and another one from G.A.R. General Headquarters. If there is no <br />objection from the members, we will make that a part of the file and <br />they are available for anyone to see, if they so desire. <br /> <br />Now, if I may summarize my feelings on the questions that members of the <br />board have raised, I think the whole question at this time is whether <br />we have confidence in the work of the staff, who work with the Division <br />of Wildlife, incoming up with these minimum stream flows. If you do, <br />then I think it is our obligation under the existing law to approve I <br />them and then set into motion the procedure for filing t,hese claims. <br />Mr. Fetcher, there is no way in the world that we can assure you under <br />any circumstances that someone is not going to protest this. I don't <br />think we should postpone action on it until the legislature considers it <br />further. Obviously there will be people expressing their own individual <br />or district views at the legislature. I believe that if you have <br />confidence in the work of the staff, and their recommendations, that <br />the proper procedure at this time is to approve them. Then whatever <br />happens after that, I think we have discharged our responsibility under <br /> <br />-16- <br />