|
<br />In ,the"meantime,..I ,think.,weal1 have,~a letter .that: La:p:Y!1Qrr:!'U..wiJ,l
<br />be the~acting director of. the water board. '
<br />
<br />MR. SPARKS: I forgot, Mr. Chairman, to mention the fact that the
<br />board does have the opportunity to reject all applicants and request
<br />a new announcement. ....
<br />
<br />. - ~ . r ~ .. _ - . ~. , _ . .l. '. _" _ .:
<br />MR., KROEGER: Than~ you. ,One other thing I,thought W{iS ~ntere~ting
<br />was that, the advertising for, this job was going,to go natipnwide.
<br />So it could be an interesting selection process. .
<br />
<br />"
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />J. ,D. MacFarlane met:with .us last, time.,in
<br />he was going to take an, interest in water
<br />happy.to"see, him~back with ,us again today
<br />siastic, and optimistic ,report.,,_
<br />
<br />Denver and indicated tha~
<br />,board activities, and I am
<br />and ,hope you, ,have,. an enthu-
<br />
<br />MR. MacFARLANE: That all depends on which side of th~ fE!~ce you are
<br />on. I have a,rather lengthy report, Mr. Chairman.. c,
<br />
<br />.- - .-. .... ..' .
<br />Let me star.t, out.,. first, of all,_with,the major. case for, tq:il! boa;r~"
<br />impacting,upon this boa~4. .,That isthe,m;i.nimum, str~amflow cilse. . That
<br />came down on, May, l.,:.and for those of you who have npthad ap. opportu-
<br />nity to read the case yet, it is what I consider a ringing endorsement
<br />of ,the,. minimum s treamflow, legis lati,on." J1.l~ t.:ice , 9rov!;s wrpt:e" th~
<br />opinion, which was unanimous.' Basically, it, pr~ttym1.lch ap'~wered m<;>st
<br />of the. questions that had been raised,in the minimum streamflow legis-
<br />lation, with, the, important exception" that: in ruling on the; :issue .o,f:o
<br />the adequacy of the board procedures for determining minimum stream-
<br />flows,. the case ,actually was stipulated, in that,; respect;, and; the c,ourt
<br />very carefully pointed out that in. the . absence of evicl,en,c~ to.. ,the, :
<br />contrary that the recommendations of the Division of Wildlife and Parks
<br />and Outdoor Recreation would be sufficient to sustain a finding of. the
<br />board to proceed as to the adequacy of the minimum streamflows recom-
<br />mended. What will be the case in the situations of future.conte~t,
<br />if there is any evidence ever presented that those determinations are
<br />not ,adequate ,is still open, to ques,tion" and", undoubt,<<;!,dly, will be
<br />the subject of litigation as we go on into future filings., I think
<br />the major impact of the case at the moment, quitE! (rankly, is that we
<br />have quite a number of minimum streamflow applications that will have
<br />to, either be carried through the course ,of. filing or,perfe~t~d.
<br />
<br />.J. _
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />I was talking with Duane this morning, and.we estimate that: within
<br />the next two or three years we will have somewhere in the neighbor-
<br />hood of 1,500, such applications., This year, alone it will probabJ,y
<br />amount to somewhere in the neighborhood of I,OOO. Sq what that i~pact
<br />is going to be, primarily, is on my office, obviously, to proceed with
<br />
<br />-32-
<br />
|