BOARD01567

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

Mr. Stapleton: It would be the Chair's impression if it were defeated,
to go on 1t 1ndividua1ly -- now, there is somebody from the audience?

From the Audience: Before you vote on this action, I would like to have
some explanation of the justification for going on a stream and asking
for a one second foot decree on something of that size, and what is
proposed to be accomplished by doing it.

Mr. Stapleton: Well, I am not acquainted with the one second foot that
he is referring to. Larry, do you have any comment on that?

Mr. Sparks: One second foot is better than nothing. We have many small
streams that have value. They don't necessarily produce lunker size
trout, but they have values for aquatic life and wildlife.

Mr. Burr: May I call for a roll call vote?

Mr. Saunders: The statutes have authorized this board to make appro-
priations on minimum flows. It is not mandatory. It is left to the
discretion of this board as to its implementation. What Mr. Moses
said -- he used one word that is very important, he said that, of course.
as I have suggested, the right of limitations on the purpose of the
appropriation which would in effect, he said, emasculate the purpose of
the statute. I do not believe we need to emasculate the purpose of the
statute. I don't believe the legislature intended to emasculate the
rights of the appropriators in the Yampa Valley, or anywhere else, to
change the point of diversion, place of use, the character of use of
their water rights by this act. They expected this board to use a sound
descretion. Now, it is a question of which to emasculate and haw much.
We are going to emasculate water rights to a certain degree if we have
minimum stream flows. There are areas where we need practically no
limitations because by maintaining those stream flows we will do no
substantial harm to other users. There are others where this board, I
believe, should strictly limit the intent to an appropriation for these
purposes as to not interfere with future transfers. The senior rights
are not hurt by transfer, and I think Mr. Moses and I are in complete
agreement, because we are up against the same things all the time.

Mr. Adkins: I am Ralph Adkins. I think the thing that we talked about
here in regard to the possibility of the danger of subsequent transfers
is probably more realistically borne out on Gageby Creek than it may be
in others. I would like to verify this with Game and Fish .- is this
correct? I am just wondering what would happen if Fort Lyon elects to
move its rights, and we are going to be faced with the possibility of not I
doing it, because you have put a requirement to maintain water in Gageby
Creek which will preclude the Fort Lyon1s ability to do this sort of
thing with their water rights. In a sense, this is entirely different
from a live river stream such as Crystal or some of the others in the
state.

I

Mr. Kochman: Mr. Chairman, I would like to apologize for not giving
my name the first time. I am Eddie Kochman and I am an employee with
the Colorado Division of Wildlife. We did make recommendations to the

-20-