Laserfiche WebLink
<br />" <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Mr. William MCDonald, Director <br />July 28, 1987 <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />2. I believe that Fort Collins is willing to discuss with <br />the Board a possible contract or other arrangement which would <br />address the issue of future protection of this right, and provide <br />the Board with significant involvement in that process. In this <br />way, the policy goal of having the Board, as a state agency, <br />balance the various interests at stake would be satisfied. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />3. At this time, I believe that the only fixed request of <br />the city will be to preserve its appropriation date and filing <br />date. I realize that this may seem to frustrate the policy goal <br />of providing public notice and comment on instream rights prior <br />to filing. However, the equities in this case cannot be ignored. <br />Fort Collins is simply trying to protect a significant and actual <br />investment that it has already made and will be increasing in the <br />future in its Recreational Corridor. others may also be trying <br />to protect existing exchanges, or other rights, and I believe <br />that Fort Collins is willing to discuss how those existinq rights <br />would be integrated with its Recreational Corridor and not be <br />injured. However, other new water rights filings pose a <br />different issue. Did they give advance public notice that they <br />would be claiming future rights to all unappropriated water in <br />the Poudre River? How was Fort Collins to protect its rights in <br />its existing Recreational Corridor in the absence of such notice? <br />I believe that the Fort Collins investment deserves protection, <br />just like any other investment in a water use, and that the lack <br />of advance public notice should not prevent that protection. <br /> <br />4. There were a small number of "private" instream flow <br />claims filed prior to the adoption of SB 212. I do not think <br />that the Board would create dangerous precedent or violate any <br />legal requirement if it would look at each of those cases on <br />their own facts, and, if requested by the Applicant, evaluate <br />whether the Board could satisfy its basic policy goals by direct <br />involvement in the case. In this way, the Board could separate <br />the wheat from the chaff and participate in only those cases <br />which have real merit and litigate those which do not. Since I <br />believe that there was some legitimate confusion about the proper <br />interpretation of the law prior to the adoption of SB 212, no <br />case filed after its adoption would need to be accorded this <br />treatment. <br /> <br />Obviously, the Fort Collins case is one which I believe has <br />real merit. After touring the city's facilities, I hope you <br />would agree. With the right set of negotiated conditions, the <br />Board's basic policy goals as I understand them can be satisfied <br /> <br />. ftcollin\william <br />