Laserfiche WebLink
-109 - <br /> <br />reflects the fact that these are separate -- separate, distinct procedures. <br />With respect to the way your regulations work, I would like to point out few <br />things. <br />One, the obligation of the operator is to comply with the performance <br />standards, Rule 6.2. The Board has set forth how an operator is to comply <br />with tfi at and with respect to the question of water quantity, it requires <br />compliance with applicable Colorado Water Law. That does not translate into a <br />need to show how that operator will comply with the Colorado Water Law. That <br />is not within the purview of this Board and never has been, and I think the <br />Board has taken that position time and time again. <br />MR. BARRY: Dean, I -- I understand that statement exactly the same way <br />you do. Yet, I am troubled by the language of our own regulation, which I <br />have not referred to often, which says, these sources and the rights shall be <br />investigated by the Board blah-blah, prior to the Board's consideration of the <br />application. Now, I don't remember having dealt with that language very often <br />before, and I want to know what your response to that language in our own <br />regulation is. <br />MR. MASSEY: My response is that -- is twofold. One, I think you can't <br />take that out of context of what the overall performance obligation.... <br />MR. BARRY: Which is perserve the hydrologic balance. <br />MR. MASSEY: ...to preserve the hydrologic balance. The overall water <br />use, which Gary has testified, is insignificant in the context oaf the <br />agricultural use in the area. One, again, I don't think that's within the <br />purview of this Board, but I -- believe that's just a matter of fact. <br />Two, we're in the process of negotiating -- it's common knowledge and I'll put <br />on testimony if you want me to, but there's plenty of water available for sale <br />• in the area. We're in negotiations right now with two or three different <br />