Laserfiche WebLink
<br />J <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />would on these things suggested here. <br /> <br />Mr. Moses: All this does is protect you in the future. It doesn't <br />make any more water in the stream and it doesn't adversely affect the <br />existing rights. There are some agencies who are taking a look at <br />streams and are considering acquiring by purchase enough water rights <br />so that they can physically put water in the stream. We have a situ- <br />ation like that in Boulder where a public-spirited corporation that <br />had some water rights has agreed to donate those rights. They haven't <br />decided yet whether they are going to give them to the city of Boulder <br />or to Trout Unlimited. They intend to give those rights so that they <br />can actually put wet water in the stream and have a live stream on a <br />stretch of Boulder Creek which now many times is completely dry from <br />the hydro plant west of Boulder to the return flow of the Boulder city <br />sewage effluent. That stretch of about five or six miles. maybe a <br />little more, now many times is bone dry because of the diversions to <br />operate the hydro plant. So that is a different situation. That is <br />where somebody is going out and spending money to acquire a water right <br />to put water back into the stream that otherwise wouldn't be there. <br />But our filings don't put any water in the stream. They don't limit <br />anybody who has a valid water right from going ahead and exercising it. <br />It does restrict future appropriations or future changes in that stream <br />which would bring the level of the stream below the minimum. <br /> <br />Mr. Fetcher: Ray. in the example you just gave. how could an individual <br />or an entity apply for water which is in effect minimum stream flow. <br />Wouldn't that be in violation of the law which says that we have to <br />apply to that minimum stream flow? <br /> <br />Mr. Moses: Well. that is our position in the Pitkin County case and <br />the court hasn't ruled on it yet. but I feel comfortable about our <br />position. <br /> <br />Mr. Fetcher: I was thinking about the Boulder situation. <br /> <br />Mr. Moses: Boulder just says, there won't be any changes in the future <br />which will further reduce the flows. <br /> <br />Mr. Ten Evck: This is somebody leaving his water in the stream. He <br />buys a water right. John. and then doesn't use it. He leaves the water <br />in the stream and therefore it is still his right. if he doesn't <br />abandon it. <br /> <br />Mr. Moses: Well. he would give it to an entity and it would be left <br />in the stream for that particular purpose and would be earmarked <br />because we have the minimum flow decree. <br /> <br />Mr. Vandemoer: His earlier right is at stake. am I right? Earlier <br />date to take it out? <br /> <br />Mr. Moses: No. <br /> <br />Mr. Vandemoer: Why not? <br /> <br />-34- <br />