Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />water to augment that stream flow in terms of any deve1epment that yeu <br />might have and that's what we're talking abeut on the Lightner Creek <br />and Junction Creek drainage down from the Forest Service beundaries. <br /> <br />MR. SPARKS: As yeu know, Mr. Maynes, if we get a decree, it will be a <br />1976 decree. It will be junier to everything that's there teday. I <br />fail to. see hew this decree can affect anything on Lightner Creek that <br />exists today. It most certainly would affect something that happens in <br />the future en Lightner C~eek, but it cannet affect any decree now in <br />existence. I assume your ebjectien is to. something that might happen <br />in the future on Lightner Creek. Is that correct? <br /> <br />MR. MAYNES: Yes, plus, l'm not all that ready to admit -- as you know. <br />I've listened to. this debate en several eccasiens abeut how this junior <br />decree is not going to. affect anybody. I still think that the minimum <br />streamflow law, when it was enacted by the legislature, going back to. <br />the debate with regard to. minimum stream flows at that time, the alter- <br />natives that were facing the state with regard to either a censtitutienal <br />amendment for minimum stream flows, that this law was not necessarily <br />designed to go down from the headwaters ef the stream clear down to <br />their confluences with that stream, because I don't think that this <br />beard is wanting to. thwart all types of development in all areas ef the <br />state. <br /> <br />I get back to. the objection that Mr. Kroeger raised at the Pueblo <br />meeting. ,Now, hopefully with the agreement that we made with Mr. <br />Helten and Mr. Kochman, that the Lightner Creek area and Junction Creek <br />area will not be affected that way. But in terms ef the winter flow, <br />if there's only ene second feet ef water in the stream in the winter <br />and that's the historic flow, or if it's four or five secend feet, it <br />seems a little bit incongrueus to me that this board gees in and claims <br />ten second feet as a minimum stream flow. Why don't they just claim <br />the feur er five secend feet? <br /> <br />MR. KROEGER: I den't want to continue to. say the same thing ever and <br />over, but Larry mentioned that we were deing this en the majer streams. <br />Larry, we haven't dene the Animas, the Florida, the Pine, and Piedra, <br />the San Juan. These are major streams. There s water in them today <br />that could be appropriated, and it would be a sound basis to do so. <br />But here we're en little old La Plata Creek taking, two., two, two and <br />ene on all the tributaries which have no. potential for fisheries at <br />any rate. <br /> <br />So., I'm net geing to. say mere about it. I'd just like to have it be <br />done in a more respensible and credible manner, because I think as a <br />Water Beard, we have our neck eut a mile in not deing this thing in as <br />geed a fashien as we would expect any ether appropriater to. do. <br /> <br />MR. ROBBINS: It seems to. me then that it's the respensibility ef this <br />beard to. give directien to. the Division of Wildlife. I find it highly <br />irrespensible fer us to. criticize the Divisien ef Wildlife ceming in <br />here witheut direction from this board as to. how they want these <br />streams dene. If yeu weu1d like the Animas River and every tributary <br /> <br />-47- <br />