WSPC54 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The Steamboat Pilot: Many in South Routt County alarmed over water rights ~) a 12 7 I . "I went out of pure curiosity. I walked out of there saying, I've got to call my clients. We have got to get (water rights) in before the city," she said. O'Donnell's clients are not the only ones concerned about the impact the city's water rights could have on their land use. Bob Plaska, who is the state's water engineer based in Steamboat Springs and would be responsible for administrating the city's recreational water rights if approved by the Colorado Water Court, has been contacted by concerned landowners. They want to know if the city's water rights would be administrated differently than other rights and whether they should try to get a water right in before the city files in December. "I feel that is up to them. I can't recommend; I can't counsel them one way or another. If they have any concerns, they should contact a water attorney," he said. . Moving too fast County Commissioner Doug Monger has major concerns about how recreational water rights would impact municipal, residential, commercial, industrial and even agricultural development in South Routt. Monger, who also sits on the board of the Upper Yampa Water Conservation District, said if the city does file a water right on the whole body of the Yampa River, it has the potential to put a call on the river every year. If the upstream towns of Yampa, Phippsburg and Oak Creek need to increase the water they takes from the Yampa River to accommodate future growth, they would need the permission of the city first, Monger said. Those towns are where growth is supposed to occur when Steamboat outgrows itself, Monger said, and where affordable housing already exits. "If you can't find a house in Steamboat, and you can't provide water for Oak Creek and Yampa, where do you go?" Monger asked. Monger also said ranchers who wanted to expand their agricultural practices and those who wanted to build wetlands could have difficulty getting water rights if they were junior to the city's recreational water rights. Porzak said similar concerns came up in past cases and had gone away by the time the recreational water rights were granted. "I have heard a lot of people say the sky is falling. That is simply not the issue," Porzak said. In the Golden case, Porzak said Georgetown, which sits upstream, feared Golden's recreational water rights intended for its kayaking course would impact Georgetown's potential for growth. To appease Georgetown, Porzak said, a provision was written to make it clear that Golden's recreational water right would be subordinate to Georgetown's anticipated future use. Recreational water rights usually are applied only from dawn to dusk and from April to October, Porzak said, so plenty of opportunities exist for other water users to divert water and not impact the city's right. Once those points were explained to municipalities and river users, Porzak said, the opposition went away. Brenner said the city wants to have those kinds of discussions. "We want to put those concerns at rest. But there is a legal order of things to do, and it will help everyone if we have a single proposal rather than a hypothetical one," Brenner said. The city feels pressured to file before 2004 because water rights are prioritized by year. An even larger concern, Brenner said, is the uncertainty of what the state Legislature could do in 2004. . http://www.steamboatpilot.comlsectionlarchive/story/20438 Page 3 of 4 11/28/2003