WSP12563 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

News Story #7 ,II -!.{', Page 1 of2 000227 State questions whitewater park's impact on diversions The truth comes out by Pete Sharp Last week's trial in water court regarding the Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District's (UGRWCD) application for a recreational in-channel diversion (RICD) right for the whitewater park was largely consumed by discussion about the state's concern that such a right would impair its ability to divert water out of the basin. While the state has been quiet about any intentions of transmountain diversion, the trial indicated a blatant interest in doing so, at least at some point in the future. Due to a broad disparity in how much water the UGRWCD believes should be reserved for recreational use and how much the state's Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) believes is appropriate, Division 4 Water Court Judge Steven Patrick postponed a decision until the early months of 2004. .. It doesn't matter whether it's Union Park or a pump-back system, so long as while I'm governor the headwaters of the Gunnison River will stay in the Gunnison River," said Owens at Western State College's Water Workshop on July 23, 2003. He then introduced Referendum A, which would enable bonding for water projects throughout the state. He added that, as he envisions the money being put to use, the numerous existing reservoirs in Colorado could be expanded slightly, resulting in "significant additions to the overall water supply." Such further development of water storage would theoretically provide water for growth while preserving enough for irrigators as well. .. It would allow the Front Range to use more Front Range/Eastern Slope water so that they don't have to compete for Western Slope water," added Owens, refuting suggestions it would in fact facilitate diversions projects. The idea of obtaining an RICD right began to gain steam in 2001, when it became evident that a whitewater park for kayakers and rafters would become a reality. An RICD right is designed to ensure that a certain supply of water will be guaranteed to protect the purposes of the park. After speaking at length with the recreation community and considering how such a right would impact the rest of the UGRWCD's responsibilities, a formal filing was made in March 2002. The RICD right, as filed, would guarantee flows from May 1 through September 30 ranging from 270 cubic feet per second (cfs) to 1,500 cfs. These requested flows, says UGRWCD manager Kathleen Curry, reflect the best balance between the needs of recreationalists-all skill levels-and the needs of ranchers. Preceding last week's trial, a hearing took place in September 2002 with the CWCB, a board under the auspices of the state's Department of Natural Resources. At this hearing, the CWCB made a fonnal finding that the RICD right should never exceed 250 cfs during the entire period from May 1 through September 30. It is this finding that the UGRWCD and CWCB went to trial over last week and it is this finding that Judge Patrick will attempt to sort out. But due to time constraints in the five-day trial, a decision is not expected until at least January 2004. However, it was the state's concern with how the RICD right would impact the state's ability to divert water out of the Gunnison River basin that perturbs Curry and others. The CWCB's recommended flow of 250 cfs throughout the five-month period serves to keep more water unspoken for than if the UGRWCD's larger request was met, thus, theoretically, assuring the availability of that much more water which could be diverted for Front Range purposes. Such a surplus is called a marketable yield. It is the size of the marketable yield that could make or break diversion plans. The UGRWCD's expert witness, former Department of Natural Resources director Jim Lockhead, testified that the UGRWCD's application would not impair diversion attempts. However, the CWCB expert testified otherwise. But while public statements indicate diversion is not an issue right now, the trial was different. .. The emphasis was completely on transmountain diversion," says Curry. "It was astounding. We had anticipated a discussion about the merits of our application but they specifically discussed diversion projects," In fact, Curry says that in the state's opening remarks, the state claimed that the UGRWCD's application was nothing more than a subterfuge to cover up their ongoing effort to block transmountain diversion. But citing his opinion that there were not enough facts to support either flow regime, Judge Patrick delayed making a decision. Ramon Reed, president of People Opposing Water Export Raids (POWER), a local citizens' group, says that it was apparent that the state's concern with the RICD application was due to its long-tenn plan for http://www.crestedbuttenews.com/news7.html 9/29/2003