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 />to-be here. <br /> <br />One of the great concerns of Eag~e County, an agricultural county, is, <br />for instance, the need for water supplies for domestic and municipal <br />use. A good example is the. town of ~agle. Other towns, of course, <br />like Vail, also need municip~l water supplies. One of ~he great I <br />concerns that these county commissioners had is that property rights <br />are: starting to become an issue in Eagle County. A rancher who wants <br />to sell all or part of a historic irrigation decree for say, the <br />consumptive use portion to a municipal~ty, wi~l find his opportunity <br />for sale seriously eroded in the face of a protest to a transfer by <br />this board.. <br /> <br />We also have a great deal of concern about appropriating waters--and I <br />don't see any on this list, although Engineer Currier may--where the <br />appropriations for the instream flow claims are, in. fact, appropriations <br />of irrigation return flows. <br /> <br />I think, gentlemen, that Eagle C9unty should be heard by this board if <br />at all possible. I would like for those county commissioners to have <br />an opportunity to be heard at the ne~t board meeting when perhaps the <br />weather won't be as inclement. <br /> <br />I would also like to comment that, a~ this board knows, the River <br />District is litigating the entire question. The board, and I think the <br />staff, understands that some of the things I. say may have to be care- <br />fully proscribed because I am a client in this litigation. We do <br />recognize, however, that there may be some questions which should be <br />considered on the policy level by this board, including. the possibil- <br />ity of the continued expenditure of large amounts of public money in <br />the face of a lawsuit which could go either way. Of course, it is <br />going to be appealed whatever happens and is now on the way to the <br />Supreme Court. It might be discreet on the part of the board to <br />recognize that those expenditures could be in jeopardy. <br /> <br />Number two, we think that Senate Bill 97 permits the State Water Board, <br />for instream flow claims, to appropriate waters not available to <br />appropriators .in the state of Colorado. We think, and perhaps the <br />board might consider, that the appropriations you are making are, in I <br />fact, waters. not available to water users in the state of Colorado <br />under Colorado law. I think the language in Senate Bill 97 is clear <br />on that point. So, as Director Sparks points out, maybe what you are <br />appropriating for instream uses are not the waters of the state of <br />Colorado to which the appropriators are entitled to beneficiary use <br />under Colorado law, but, in fact, you are appropriating water avail- <br />able to other states, Utah, N~vada and Galifornia, etc. <br /> <br />.,..28,.. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.