My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD02112
CWCB
>
Chatfield Mitigation
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
2001-3000
>
BOARD02112
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 3:12:15 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 7:11:00 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
1/9/1978
Description
Agenda, Minutes, Resolution
Board Meetings - Doc Type
Meeting
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
92
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />The Division of Wildlife has recommended an appropriation of 80 second- <br />feet on the segment of the North Fork of the White River from Lost <br />Creek to Marvine Creek. <br /> <br />The Yellow Jacket Conservancy District has recommended an appropriation <br />of 60 second-feet. So the impact that the difference makes on the <br />project is that it takes 10,000 acre-feet of water away from the proj- <br />ect. What this does to the Yellow Jacket project is that it would <br />reduce its benefit-cost ratio and could conceivably make it more <br />difficult to get authorized. I think it is important or s.ignificant <br />that it does not affect the cost of. irrigation water to the farmer. I <br />think it is also significant that an. industrial user for this does not <br />exist at the present time. Perhaps that is enough on the first area <br />of controversy. <br /> <br />The second area of controversy involves an appropriation that was made <br />by the board at the last meeting. That appropriation was for 250 <br />second-feet on the mains tern of the White from its confluence with <br />Piceance Creek on downstream to the state line. Many of the local <br />people felt that this might be an undreasonable restraint on the <br />development. of coal and oil shale in that basin. Maybe Mr. Kroeger or <br />Mr. Sparks can pick that up. <br /> <br />MR. COOLEY: Mr. Kroeger, again on procedure, since Tom Ten Eyck has <br />made his remarks on the oil shale, I wonder if Mr. Sparks would inform <br />you further on the downstream problem which does not affect my client, <br />Yellow Jacket, but which I think will be of interest and real concern <br />to the board. And he has addressed, again earlier today. in. a conference <br />concerning. this, some of these concerns quite articulately. <br /> <br />MR. SPARKS: We have met on several occasions with representatives of <br />the citizens of Rio Blanco County. We have met with the Bureau of <br />Reclamation and the people. from the Division of Wildlife trying to <br />reconcile some of the conflicting views concerning these appropriations. <br /> <br />First, to take up the matter of the upper portion of the North Fork of <br />the White River, which is a problem somewhat separate from the lower <br />portion, it is the responsibility of this board to appropriate water <br />for environmental protection. One of the critical issues oEenviron- <br />mental protection is the effect of streamflow upon fish and wildlife. <br />As part of that duty, however, we have to balance out the various <br />conflicting issues. Obviously, it is impossible to distribute the <br />water supplies of this state to satisfy every possible need. Some <br />compromise must be arrived at in every case. It would be self- <br />destructive to appropriate all of the waters of the streams of this <br />state for environmental purposes. It would be likewise self-destruc- <br />tive of the values of this state to de-water every scream in the state. <br /> <br />.,17- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.