Laserfiche WebLink
<br />MR. BENTON: Wasn't there some contest in court over the constitution- <br />ality of this particular piece of legislation? What's transpired on <br />that, Mr. Robbins? <br /> <br />MR. ROBBINS: We have had a challenge to the constitutionality of our <br />fi~ings in W~ter Division Number 5 on the Crystal River; the north, <br />south, and middle Thompson Creek; Avalanche Creek; and Beaver Creek. I <br />We have reached a stipulated agreement with Vail Associates who were <br />one of the opponents and I'm waiting on a draft stipulation from Vail <br />Associates at this time on Beaver Creek. The other statements of <br />opposition come from the West Divide Water Conservancy District and the <br />Colorado River Water Conservation District. They allege the unconsti- <br />tutionality of the statute. The judge in Water Division Number 5, <br />Judge Stewart, sufferedaasstrbkess0me~monthsaggoaarldttheppre-tria1snin <br />these cases were canceled and have not been reset. It is my under- <br />standing that Judge Stewart is retiring. So there will be a period of <br />time before the Supreme Court appoints a new water judge for Division 5. <br />I'm anticipating that it will: be six months before we can even have a <br />pre-trial on~that issue. <br /> <br />We had two.additiona1 challenges in Water Division 2 by the Southeastern <br />District. We are in the process of stipulating that those be removed <br />because we can put conditions in the decree issued on those two streams <br />that will satisfy that district. I think we're quite a ways off from <br />getting a legal determination as to the constitutionality of the law. <br />We have no challenges on lake levels. As a matter of fact, in the. <br />Arkansas drainage, we have 52 lake 1eveL:fi1ings approved at this time. <br /> <br />MR. NAGY: George Nagy of the Forest Service. I would like to correct <br />Mr. Sparks. The Forest Service.is not now filing on any minimum <br />stream flows. However, based on the outcome of the litigation in Water <br />Division 4, 5 and 6, it's very conceivable that we will sometime in the <br />future. <br /> <br />MR. SPARKS: The Justice Department, in its ,petition, has claimed water <br />for minimum stream flows. That's part of its petition. They have not <br />quantified those amounts. Tbey don't say,how.much and that's giving. <br />us a problem ri1ht now. We're trying to get them to specify what <br />quantities they re talking about. However, the federal applications <br />do clearly ask for minimum stream flows. <br /> <br />MR. STAPLETON: Don Hanson? <br /> <br />MR. HANSON: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I think the thing th~t~oughtetbrbegt: <br />broughteout here is just exactly why they have to have adjudication <br />for these things and why the Fish and Game Department. What is. the <br />reason for it? <br /> <br />MR. SPARKS: <br />legislators. <br /> <br />I would say that's a matter you should take up with your <br />We're only carrying out the law. We dilldn't enact it. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />MR. ROBBINS: I read Mr. Fetcher the authorized legislation. I think <br />that the statute, which is 37-92-102(3), much directs the Water Board <br /> <br />-26- <br />