Laserfiche WebLink
<br />We figure that we have somewhere between ten and fifteen thousand miles <br />of streams to study, which means that we are looking at a long-term <br />project. We have established priorities. We gave the first priority <br />to the Blanco and Navajo area because of the San Juan-Chama project in <br />southwestern Colorado. The second priority is the Roaring Fork and its <br />tributaries. We establish these priorities baBed upon where we see <br />development occurring. We are primarily at this time trying to protect I <br />the high mountain streams where a very valuable fishery resource exists. <br />We do have small creeks where previous studies were under way. We <br />throw them in from time to time as those studies are completed. <br /> <br />Mr. Moses: Let me add one more thing. I think the Division of Wildlife <br />is sensitive to this problem about having an adequate flow because they <br />don't want to be subject to criticism in the future either about fish <br />dying. My experience has been that these quantities which they have <br />suggested are probably adequate. <br /> <br />Mr. Stapleton: All right. Fred. <br /> <br />Mr. Ten Eyck: Mr. Chairman. is a motion in order? <br /> <br />Mr. Kroeger: Ben, in the case of the Navajo and the Blanco we have <br />some considerations I think that we should discuss. <br /> <br />Mr. Sta\,leton: If I may. can I have a motion that we will defer con- <br />siderat10n of everything except Navajo, Blanco and Badger Creek until <br />the next meeting? <br /> <br />Mr. Ford: Yes, I will move that. <br /> <br />Mr. Geissinger: I second it. <br /> <br />Mr. Stapleton: It has been moved and seconded. All those in favor of <br />that motion signify by saying "aye" - opposed, "no." The motion that <br />we defer consideration of everything except Navajo. Blanco and Badger <br />Creek until the next meeting passes unanimously. <br /> <br />Mr. Kroeger: I mentioned the Navajo and the Blanco because, as Larry <br />has indicated. they are involved with the San Juan-Chama diversions. <br />At the time of the authorization of the San Juan-Chama some wording <br />was put in the act that Colorado would be protected on present and <br />future uses of its water. So in this particular case. although it is <br />a 1974 or perhaps a 1975 decree. it actually goes back and has an impact <br />on the San Juan-Chams because this is under that legislation a future <br />development. I think we can expect the people of New Mexico to object I <br />to this from the standpoint that is is a change in our law since that <br />legislation came about. I favor what is happening. although I think <br />this board should be aware that this decision may require some fighting <br />to make it stick. <br /> <br />Mr. Stapleton: Do you have any comments on that, Mr. Director? <br /> <br />Mr. Sparks: Yes, we have a tough problem down there. That is the <br />reason we gave it a priority. <br /> <br />-37- <br />