Laserfiche WebLink
<br />the statute. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Mr. Saunders: Mr. Vandemoer made a suggestion that has not been fol- <br />lowed up to now. He asked whether the attorney for the board could <br />devise a method of making this appropriation which would meet the <br />objections which he and Fetcher and Burr made. I know I could make such <br />an appropriation, and if I could -- I know Ray Moses could. It is a <br />question of limiting your intent. If you wish to do that, I am sure a <br />motion approving that will have limitation to take care of that objec- <br />tion. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Mr. Stapleton: Thank you, Mr. Saunders. I don't know that we could <br />limit our intent when the law is reasonably clear. We will refer that <br />to Mr. Moses for a professional opinion in this area. <br /> <br />Mr. Moses: I want to respond to a couple of things, one about the <br />request by the Colorado River District that it be postponed until the <br />legislature acts on Senate Bill 413. The timing of these matters is <br />such that even if these applications were filed this month, there would <br />not be a hearing on them until long after the legislature has adjourned. <br />I believe that the law that is in effect at that time would control in <br />whatever decree the court might enter. I was not aware of a filing by an <br />individual on a minimum stream flow in Division No.4. I want to get <br />with Mr. Balcomb and Mr. Fischer after the meeting and find the details <br />of that, because I will recommend to the Attorney General that we file <br />a protest to that referee's ruling. I am firmly convinced that only ,the <br />Colorado Water Conservation Board can make in-stream appropriations under <br />existing law. <br /> <br />I have always found that it is unwise, not always, but frequently unwise <br />to disagree with Mr. Saunders. I am at a loss to think of language <br />that would permit unlimited transfers after the entry of the decree or <br />which would bar the state from objecting to proposed transfers after <br />the entry of decree, which would not emasculate the purpose of the act. <br />If there is a transfer to take water out of a river basin, it could <br />very well dry up the stream, and if the state had a decree for minimum <br />stream flow and was not permitted to object, it would nullify the <br />appropriation. <br /> <br />I must emphasize what Mr. Sparks has said. I think you have a right to <br />make a diversion change in the Colorado, but it is a right that is <br />saddled with a great big proviso. The proviso is, it must not injure a <br />junior appropriator, and many times transfers can be made that will not <br />injure a junior appropriator. In the case which we are contesting now, <br />there is no question that the transfer which is proposed will benefit the <br />stream in the summer time, it will be less consumptive. These people <br />own land which is now inundated by the Ruedi Reservoir, and we must <br />consider the impact on the minimum stream flow. If their engineers can <br />satisfy our engineers that we can still have a minimum stream flow, we <br />will withdraw our protest. It is that simple, but I don't know how you <br />can put blanket waivers in the decree for future exchanges which would <br />protect the intent of the legislature: in passing this law. <br /> <br />-17- <br />