Laserfiche WebLink
<br />be considered today. :But if I I!lay, I would.like.to make a general <br />observation which will .be very brief, and then I will be. out of your <br />hair. <br /> <br />It is my understanding that there are some later proposals, perhaps, <br />for other reservations of minimum streamflows further downstream than I <br />the White River. I only want to say that for those people who are <br />currently active in an oil shale development, the majority of: them <br />feel they have adequate water rights for their concerns. If we are to <br />have a major.development of oil shale activity, and I am talking about <br />something on the order of million-barrels~a-day industries, I am not <br />certain as to what. the effects might be of minimum streamflows for. the <br />downstream and the White River. If the action today is going to be <br />restricted only to those i~ems here .on th~ second .page, which: are quite <br />a bit further upstream than I had been led to believe would be con- <br />sidered, my comments are not necessarily germane to that. <br /> <br />. <br />However, I would recommend that the staff, at the board's direction, <br />look very carefully at what. might be a dangerous impediment to future. <br />energy development in Colorado in the event that larger minimum <br />streamflows !ire later contemplated~further. downstream~than.:.the White <br />River. <br /> <br />I might make just one additional observation. According to my informa- <br />tion,. ther.e was recently completed a study as to how .Colorado w1;lters <br />could best be used to maximize personal income to the citizens of the <br />state of Colorado.: The answer, which didn't please everybody, was that <br />it could be best used for that purp.ose by devoting it to energy develop- <br />ment. For whatever interest that is to you, I would be glad to pass <br />that on. Thank you. <br /> <br />MR. KROEGER: Thank. you, Tom. : Are :there others who wish to connnent <br />about the two diversions within the North Fork of the White River? <br /> <br />MR. COOLEY: Now, Mr. Kroeger, there gets to be a question of setting <br />forth the problem, and Mr. Helton very.we~l articulated this: earlier <br />this morning at a conference with those concerned. Could I suggest, <br />just procedurally,. that he state the problem to the board, and then <br />those of us who do want to chime in. would add our comments in a more <br />appropriate manner. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />MR. KROEGER: Duane, would you do this, please. <br /> <br />MR. HELTON: I think there are two areas of controversy involving the <br />White River. The first one involves the North Fork and the. Yellow <br />Jacke:t projects. <br /> <br />-16- <br />