Laserfiche WebLink
<br />MR. SPARKS: The first item is the Hunter Creek-Fryingpan-Arkansas <br />litigation. There have been various lawsuits brought in the last <br />several years concerning minimum streamflows:on Hunter Creek in <br />connection with the operation of the Fryingpan-Arkansas project. This <br />board, in accordance with the recommendations made by the Fish and <br />Wildlife Service in 1967, made filings for minimum streamflows on I <br />Hunter Creek in exact accordance with the recommendations of the Fish <br />and Wildlife Service. The project was, therefore., designed: to operate <br />in that manner. As I recall, the Hunter Creek diversion facilities <br />will cost about $26 million, and those facilities are about 85 percent <br />completed. There has been a multi-million dollar investment in those <br />diversion facilities to date as.a part of the Fryingpan-Arkansas proj- <br />ect. <br /> <br />Various residents of Pitkin County and some of the official: agencies, <br />namely, the City of Aspen and Pitkin County, have insisted that those <br />minimum streamflows be increased. Pitkin County first brought suit . <br />against this board to compel the board to make filings in accordance <br />with Pitkin County's wishes on Hunter Creek. The board, through the <br />Attorney General, contested that litig~tion. It was. an attempt to <br />join this board as an involuntary party to adjudication proceedings. <br />We argued. that under the law only this board could maintain appro- <br />priations for minimum streamflows and that Pitkin County. had no autho- <br />rity to compel this board to comply with the desires of the County. <br />The District Court agreed with the. board's contention and the case was <br />dismissed. <br /> <br />Thereafter, Pitkin. County brought suit in the Federal Court alleging <br />irregularities under the environmental impact statement for the <br />Fryingpan-Arkansas. project, :contending, among other .things', that the <br />minimum streamflows previously recommended by the Fish .and Wildlife <br />Service were inadequate. That case was dismissed in the Federal <br />District Court, <br /> <br />The suit was resisted by the Department of Interior and the Department <br />of Justice. One of the grounds used by the Federal District Court in <br />dismissing the suit was that this was. a matter of state interest and <br />only the state of Colorado could obtain m1n1mum streamflow rights <br />since the board was vested with that authority. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Applying the legal doctrine known as parens patriae, which simply <br />means the state represents its citizens, the court held that Pitkin <br />County had no standing in the Federal Court. <br /> <br />Subsequently, through various maneuvers, the Justice Department has <br />reversed its position in the matter and stated that it had no objection <br /> <br />-40- <br />