My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP12563
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
1-1000
>
WSP12563
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 4:16:38 PM
Creation date
7/31/2007 1:34:53 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8230.400.20.D
Description
CO River Litigation - State-Div 4 Water Court - Gunnison RICD - Related News Articles
State
CO
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
5
Date
9/29/2003
Author
Various
Title
Newspaper Articles-Press Releases 2003-2004 - RE-Case Number 02-CW-038 - Gunnison RICD File 09-29-03 through 10-15-04
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
News Article/Press Release
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />,0.26.03 Orbanek: The reason will be clear if water bond issue fails <br /> <br />.. <br /> <br />000230 <br /> <br />Page 2 of: <br /> <br />be no more than 250 cfs year-around, Curry said, "Their central issue was the <br />impact on potential out-of-basin diversions." <br /> <br />The emphasis placed on protecting the potential for future out-ot-basin diversions <br />in arguments before Division 4 Water Judge Steve Patrick surprised Greg Hoskin, <br />a Grand Junction attorney who represents the Colorado River Basin on the <br />Colorado Water Conservation Board. Hoskin said out-of-basin diversions "had <br />absolutely nothing to do" with the board's discussions and ultimate <br />recommendation that the recreational flow right be limited to no more than 250 cfs. <br /> <br />"The statute does not give necessary guidelines and we were trying to figure out <br />the guidelines ourselves," said Hoskin. <br /> <br />Hoskin added that the water judge is free to make his own judgment in finally <br />quantifying Gunnison's application for a recreational water right. "Our <br />recommendation to the court is purely advisory," said Hoskin. <br /> <br />That should provide little comfort to the good folks in Gunnison who, after <br />investing some $300,000 in building the whitewater park and arguing their case in <br />water court, hope to secure a year-around recreational streamflow sufficient to <br />their investment. <br /> <br />What Gunnison's experience in filing for the recreational water right demonstrates <br />is that protecting what the Front Range considers its inalienable right to divert <br />water from the Western Slope without just compensation is never far from the state <br />water bureaucracy's proverbial mind. <br /> <br />The governor did nothing while Front Range lawmakers blocked every effort to <br />include meaningful protections for the Western Slope and any other water basin of <br />origin in Referendum A. If Referendum A fails, as private tracking polls are said to <br />be showing is increasingly likely, the governor and other Front Range lawmakers <br />dismissive about providing meaningful protections to water basins of origin will at <br />least know why. <br /> <br />ISZI Email this page to a friend <br /> <br />@ 2003 Cox Newspapers, Inc. - The Daily Sentinel <br /> <br />By using this service, you accept the terms of our visitor agreement and privacy policy. <br />Registered site users, you may edit your profile. <br /> <br />ile://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\drs.DWR\Local%20Settings\ Temporary%20Intemet%20Files\OL... 11/4/200: <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.