Laserfiche WebLink
<br />government come in to establish dates going back to 1803, fOr instance, <br />which supersede any right that we have in Colorado by fifty years, or to <br />set up a decree based on a 1910 establishment of a national forest. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Already, some of our decrees are being challenged by federal agencies <br />saying, "You have not asked for enough water." If people think we are <br />arbitrary, wait until they deal with the Forest Service or other federal <br />agencies that get a decree going back to 1910 or 1803 for three or four <br />times the amount of water that we are trying to appropriate for minimum <br />s treamflows. <br /> <br />Unless we move agressively in this field, we will be pre-empted. If the <br />states move in this field, we are hoping that Congress will say to the <br />federal agency, "You stay out. The state is doing it." That is our <br />philosophy here on the staff of the Colorado Water Conservation Board. <br /> <br />It is enevitable that the federal government will do something to protect <br />these streams. That was obvious fifteen years ago; and it is even more <br />obvious today. What we are trying to do is to give the people of the <br />state of Colorado the greatest possible protection for our water resources, <br />and still do an acceptable job of protecting our streams. <br /> <br />The federal government has already filed for a thousand second feet on <br />the Yampa River, to run through the Dinosaur National Park. That is <br />three or four times what we think is necessary to preserve the Dinosaur <br />National Park. So people who criticize us had better look at the other <br />side of the coin. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />MR. ROBBINS: Mr. Chairman, I would also like to add that in its opening <br />brief the United States makes some pretty broad statements about the <br />effect of the New Mimbres Supreme Court decision, to the effect it will <br />destroy the ability to protect the fishery and the riparian habitat in <br />the watershed on the forests. It seems to me, the United States Govern- <br />ment has opposed everyone of the filings we made for minimum streamflows <br />in December, all of the 1977 filings. They filed statements of opposi- <br />tion to them. I think it would be helpful for us to point out to the <br />Supreme Court the inconsistency of their position. They are, in reality, <br />saying, "Only we can protect minimum streamflows." It is more an issue <br />of control than anything else. That aspect of this prOblem bothers me <br />intensely; I am going to suggest that the Western States Water Council <br />brief be amended to point this out specifically to the Supreme Court. <br />And if they won't, then I intend to file a small supplement to the brief <br />if this board so directs. It is crazy. Here we are doing what they <br />wanted to do, and they are objecting to it. <br /> <br />MR. BALCOMB: Mr. Chairman, I think this morning I did not involve myself <br />with the minimum streamflow, instream flow, whatever you want to call it, <br />with regard to what was happening in the New Mexico case. My concern <br />ran to what I am satified the Justice Department case is going to be, <br />which is that it can't get fair treatment in the state courts. I think <br />I can support Mr. Robbins' request of this board to support--at least <br />partially support--New Mexico's position for whatever reason he wishes <br />to assign it. <br /> <br />-41- <br />