Laserfiche WebLink
<br />News Story #2 <br /> <br /> <br />Page 1 ofl <br /> <br />000232 <br /> <br />State board looks for local water right <br /> <br />Whitewater park flow rates challenged <br />by Kristina Johnson <br />The battle to protect water flows for recreational boaters on the Gunnison River is not over yet. In a meeting last <br />Wednesday, January 28, members of the Colorado Water Conservation Soard (CWCS) voted unanimously to appeal a <br />decision granting the Gunnison Whitewater Park the rights to nearly half of the Gunnison River's water flow. <br />On December 26, 2003, Judge Steven Patrick of Colorado's Division Four Water Court issued a decision rejecting claims to <br />the water by the CWCS, a state organization made up of nine voting members appointed by the governor. <br />If Judge Patrick's decision is upheld, the river will have to meet the flow levels necessary for recreational boating in the park <br />before anyone with a junior water right-including the Front Range--can dip into the water supply. <br />The Gunnison Whitewater Park, which opened in May 2003, occupies nearly one-quarter mile of the Gunnison River <br />channel just west of the City of Gunnison. <br />The park's course includes six structures that enhance whitewater by creating waves, eddies, and holes in the river. <br />In March 2002, when the whitewater park was still in its conceptual stage, the Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy <br />District (UGRWCD) began working to lock in formal water rights for the <br />facility. <br />However, the CWCS argued that the whitewater park should not be granted water rights because those rights might block <br />future attempts to divert Gunnison Sasin water to the Front Range. <br />This argument came as a surprise to the UGRWCD board, according to board president Robert Drexel, who says Governor <br />Owens guaranteed that a transmountain diversion project out of the Gunnison Sasin would not be considered. <br />"To base their arguments on the fact that it might prohibit any transmountain diversion seemed like it was a duplicity of <br />philosophy," says Drexel, adding, "I don't know if it was lack of communication between the parties or if [the governor) is <br />saying one thing and people under his authority are doing something else." <br />Cynthia Covell, attorney for the UGRWCD, agrees. "On the one hand, we have the governor coming to town and saying 'No <br />transmountain diversion projects out of Gunnison.''' she says. "On the other hand, the CWCS is saying, 'Well, maybe <br />someday.''' <br />Part of the UGRWCD's response to CWCS's argument, according to Covell, was that the Gunnison Whitewater Park's <br />existing need for water should take precedence over the theoretical future need of a diversion project. <br />" There was a real need for a real project that our community has," explains Covell. <br />One fear of the CWCS, according to Covell, may be that the whitewater park's instream flow rights would allow water from <br />the Gunnison River to drain out of the state. At a time when Colorado is fighting to protect rights to its river water, she <br />explains, the prospect of downstream states receiving high flows from Colorado rivers may be unnerving to the CWCS, <br />which is charged with protecting the state's ability to meet water compacts with other states, as well as with Mexico. <br />However, Covell points out, most of the water from the Gunnison River ends up in Slue Mesa Reservoir rather than flowing <br />downstream. <br />" We don't believe a recreational right would impair Colorado's ability to develop compact entitlement," she argues. <br />The Supreme Court's ruling may also determine the role of the CWCS in deciding recreational water rights. State legislation <br />that went into effect in June 2001 requires the CWCS to review any request for a recreational water right before making a <br />recommendation to water court. The Gunnison whitewater case is the first to test the law. <br />Representatives of the CWCS say their policy is not to comment on pending litigation. However, CWCS director Rod <br />Kuharich notes, "One of the major reasons to appeal was because this is the first case decided and there are legal <br />questions that need to be answered." <br />The CWCS has until February 9 to file its notice of appeal with the Colorado State Supreme Court. <br />Drexel says he is disappointed by the CWCS's action. "I think it's sad that they're forcing us to spend taxpayer's money <br />fighting the appeal," he remarks. "I was hoping they would decide not to." <br /> <br />http://www.crestedbuttenews.com/news2.htmI <br /> <br />2/1112004 <br />