Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />We do think there ought to be a way to approach instream flow claims <br />perhaps more effectively under the appropriation doctrine than is <br />presently being done.. Although we are litigating the question:, the <br />River District certainly is- aware of the value of instream flow claims <br />and perhaps our complaint is that we are not just sure .that we agree <br />with the method that this board.is using to appropriate those instream <br />flow claims. <br /> <br />Thank you, Mr. Chairman-. <br /> <br />MR. KROEGER: Are there other comments regarding this? <br /> <br />MR. SPARKS: Mr. Chairman, there has been a letter submitted to us by <br />other. people in Eagle County which I will get to in a.moment. <br /> <br />I, first, want to address my remarks to some of the statements made by <br />Mr. Fischer that there must be a better method of adjudicating these <br />instream flows. <br /> <br />In the first instance, this board did not propose this statute. This <br />board recommended very strongly at the outset that the legislature <br />consider a constitutional amendment concerning minimum streamflows'. <br />However, the various water attorneys in this state disagreed with this <br />board and stated that they thought that the statutory method was the <br />way to go, and that most certainly the.statutory method was -constitu- <br />tional. This board, by memorandum, expressed some doubt .about the. <br />constitutionality of the statutory method. It is amusing- at this <br />point that some of the attorneys who said that the statute was consti- <br />tutional are now busily arguing that the statute is unconstitutional. <br /> <br />The statement that people may not be permitted to change the point of <br />diversion to the extent of previous consumptive use because of any <br />appropriation which this board has is completely incorrect. This <br />board has no greater right to object to a change in point of diversion <br />or a change in use than any other appropriator in the state. If only <br />the comsumptive use is changed, neither this board :nor any other : <br />appropriator has any valid objection. We have no greater rights than <br />any other appropriator. The fact is that if a decree of this board is <br />injured, it is almost a certainty that the rights of other junior <br />decree holders are also injured. It is obviously impossible for us to <br />suspend the statutes of this- state. We simply have no authority to do <br />so. <br /> <br />On the problems. raised by Eagle County, the repeal or suspension of <br />laws is not a matterwithin:the jurisdiction. of this board. That is a <br />matter for the Colorado General Assembly to determine. When it boils. <br /> <br />-29- <br />