Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br /> <br />MR. COOLEY: We do, indeed. I think what you may be leading to, sir, <br />is the fact that this is a junior appropriation that you are consider-. <br />ing filing upon. In our view, any appropriation for a minimum stream- <br />flow, although under Colorado law it may be a junior appropriation, <br />nevertheless automatically has a sanctity and an effect that is not <br />carried by every junior decree in a number of different ways, some of <br />which were well enunciated by Mr. Sparks. But I just might.touch upon <br />a couple. <br /> <br />One is that the Bureau of Reclamation, in designing any projects, such <br />as Yellow Jacket, we know would regard the junior right. as, in fact, a <br />superior right. and one that must be taken into consideration. Secondly, <br />of course, is the political and environmental impact of that junior <br />decree; and thirdly, just touching on these, if this is responsive to <br />your question, is the fact that a junior decree, though junior, has <br />tremendous amounts of powers and rights in Colorado courts. If I am <br />responsive to what it was you asked, that would briefly be my answer. <br /> <br />MR. KROEGER: I guess my concern wa.s that the statement was 'made that <br />with an 80 second-foot minimum streamflow decree, the Yellow Jacket <br />project would. lose 10,000 acre-feet of storage water. Would they, in <br />fact, do that with the kind of condition of the decrees that you have? <br />I am still not sure that I understa.nd this. If that is the case, <br />then why would we want to settle for 70? Why don't we go clear on <br />down to 60 so that we do protect you, if that is, in fact, the situ- <br />ation? <br /> <br />MR. -COOLEY: Partly for political reasons, frankly. We want a figure <br />that will have the support of the Division of Wildlife, because when it <br />comes to the authorization of a Colorado project, we are bloodied and <br />scarred and feel that any project that doesn't have the support of. the <br />Division of Wildlife in Colorado, given this present climate, has vir- <br />tually no chance of authorization. .It has many handicaps, but that has <br />proven to be a. critical one. We feel that it is prudent and in the <br />best interest of the project that we design the 'proJect in some. way so <br />that it enlists the support--and not the grudging support--of the <br />Division of Wildlife. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />MR. SPARKS: The Division of Wildlife conducted a study of this stretch <br />under a. contract with the Bureau of Reclamation. Regardless of what. <br />this board does, the Secretary of the Interior is at liberty to adopt <br />whatever operating procedure he wants to adop~. That is irrespective <br />of whether the state gets any decree or not. What we are trying to <br />do here is to arrive at a satisfactory figure in-house so that the <br />state of Colorado can strongly support that. figure. In doing that, I <br />think we can prevail upon the Secretary of the Interior to adopt it as <br />Rart of his operating criteria for the Yellow Jacket project. It is <br />very critical that we in Colorado attain an in-house agreement as to <br /> <br />-19- <br />