Laserfiche WebLink
Steamboat Springs Meeting <br />August 7, 2001 <br />KRAI Radio in Craig suggestion of how to advertise these events. <br />Rod welcome everyone. Start with introductions. Jim Weber City of Steamboat Springs. Gave <br />presentation. <br />Al White: Has the court reinterpreted so that others can hold instream flow rights? <br />RK difference of a controlling structure in these cases. <br />RK Comments, questions, etc. 2 voting board members here. Summarize some comments. <br />Economic benefits of rafting. Importance of rec economy. All agree with that. State as whole is <br />7 th , interior mtns many communities it is largest. Apply standard of beneficial use w/o waste. <br />Other uses goverened by w/o waste. Concern about speculative nature of board looking at future <br />issues. Recommend to board is not speculation is looking out for future inhabitants. Access and <br />whether should be control of access through stream reach. Don't want board involved in is right <br />to flow issue. 2 court cases now, not in our charge. Should look at rights of access, can local gov <br />get to stream, own/easements /etc. liability also came up. When local gov build something like <br />Golden is for excitement, so liability comes into place. Liability downstream, farm bureau last <br />night, damages downstream from water park. One case where 404 permit granted to restore <br />stream to fishery, head gates silted in downstream. Have to look downstream. Don't think our <br />rules and regs should be involved in that. <br />Al White: leg before introduced. Cwcb would be quasi judicial. What is participation, changed <br />from orginal <br />Rk original had to do with role of cwcb in enforcing their rules and provide court test that rules <br />only overturned if acted irresponsibly (w /o info entered into record). Final bill concern was that <br />would be quasi judicial. Final bill in role of fact finding and recommendations to court. Can be <br />overturned by applicant introducing evidence to rebut what presented. Much more lenient. Role <br />of cwcb had role that went beyond normal objector b/c of future issue. We have good track <br />record of negotiation. History of working together. Anticipate approach it that way with this. Say <br />to applicant to come to us first and we'll work with you. If not we'll take ap and work on what's <br />needed for finding of fact all can work with. <br />Al: prior to compromise negotiation. Court would have been bound by cwcb decision (barring <br />arbirtrary). Now court bound only in absence of rebuttal. <br />Rk not even that. Can decide pro or con. Burden of proof still with court. <br />Dan Craig: RT county farm bureau. What happens to existing priority system with these <br />diversions. <br />