Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I am thoroughly in accord with the idea, and would recommend that, again, <br />to the Attorney General, that it be incorporated in every in-stream <br />decree, that it dOes not adversely affect present exchange practices <br />whether recognized by decree or not. I am satisfied from conversations <br />with members of the legislature that it was the clear intent of the <br />legislature not to interfere with existing water rights. That is one I <br />reason we object to the Pitkin County filings. They are asking for a <br />priority date of 1880, which would nullify every water right on the <br />Roaring Fork, if it were granted. It is my interpretation of the law <br />that the legislature did not intend to interfere with the existing rights <br />held by any water user, and that right includes the right to change <br />point'.of diversion, but that right to change point of diversion is again <br />limited by one which will not injure others on the stream. I think we <br />have an obligation to object to it and try to get conditions put in the <br />transfer which maintains the stream as it was at the time that the state <br />got its appropriation. I am not going to express an opinion about the <br />wisdom of it. I agree that it in effect locks up any future develop- <br />ment of streams which are given limited stream flow decrees which would <br />reduce the amount of water available below the amount of that decree. <br />In other words, if you have a minimum stream flow of one hundred second <br />feet on the Crystal, nobody can come along and make a 1976 appropriation <br />which would reduce the amount of water in the Crystal below one hundred <br />second feet in that period of time. I think that is clear. But I will <br />be happy to visit with Mr. Saunders after the meeting and arrive at some <br />kind of language that might satisfy Mr. Vandemoer's and Mr. Fetcher's <br />problems. Frankly, I don't see how we can do it in a blanket manner <br />which would still keep viable the minimum stream flows. <br /> <br />Mr. Cornelius: Mr. Chairman. Over the years this board has had some <br />very controversial discussions. To preserve that common event on the <br />board, I would move that the decision on this minimum stream flow that <br />is before us today be tabled until local problems can be resolved. I <br />move that we table the decision. <br /> <br />Mr. Stapleton: I would like to inquire whether you mean until the next <br />board meeting, which is tentatively scheduled on July 9 in Durango or <br />further than that. I think we must take some action some time. We <br />deferred these matters from February until today. My guess is that the <br />legislature would certainly have adjourned by then. We want to keep the <br />pressure on to make a determination in this regard, which I consider to <br />be our responsibility. <br /> <br />Mr. Cornelius: When you have a motion to table, it remains on the table <br />until it is asked to be taken off. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Mr. Stapleton: I think you are right. <br />Mr. Burr: Mr. Stapleton -- <br /> <br />Mr. Stapleton: Are you seconding the motion? <br />Mr. Burr: No, sir, I have a remark I would like to make. <br /> <br />-18- <br />