Laserfiche WebLink
<br />II <br /> <br />News Story #2 <br /> <br />000680 <br /> <br />Page 2 of2 <br /> <br />" Water is a very important resource in Colorado," he says. "[Recreational] water rights have the potential <br />to claim huge flows." <br />If the Whitewater Park is granted rights to excessive water flows, Kowalski explains, it could limit water <br />use by those upstream from the park who hold junior water rights. <br />These junior water rights could include new water storage projects and developments, Kowalski explains, <br />as well as possible transmountain diversion projects. <br />" Our board has to consider all potential uses, including trans-basin diversion," he says. <br />As a result, the case carries additional significance: water rights granted for recreation may become one of <br />the biggest obstacles standing between the Front Range and a Gunnison Basin water grab. <br />If Judge Patrick rules again to grant the Whitewater Park the rights requested by the UGRWCD, the river <br />will have to meet the flow levels necessary for recreational boating in the park before anyone with a junior <br />water right-including the Front Range-can dip into the water supply. <br />The battle over water rights for the Gunnison Whitewater Park has also served as a test case for Senate <br />Bill 216, and Monday's decision will likely affect the outcome of a number of recreational water right <br />applications throughout the state. <br />It could also influence debates over Senate Bill 62, which would cap the recreational water rights granted <br />by Senate Bill 216 at a maximum flow of 350 cfs. The bill, which is opposed by the UGRWCD, has passed <br />the Senate and is scheduled for a hearing later this month in the House Committee on Agriculture, <br />Livestock and Natural Resources, <br />Representative Kathleen Curry (D-61), the chair of the Agriculture Committee, has recused herself from <br />voting on Senate Bill 62, since she signed the original application for recreational water rights for the <br />whitewater park when she was serving as UGRWCD manager. <br />/; However, Curry says the Supreme Court's decision affirms the need for the state legislature to provide <br />!,~ more direction for the courts in RICD applications. <br />, "I don't think it would hurt to have better input from the General Assembly on how to determine minimum <br />flow for a reasonable recreational experience," she says. <br />Currently, she notes, no such definition exists in the statutes. <br />The District Four Water Court has not yet set a date for its second review of the case. <br /> <br />http://www.crestedbuttenews.com/news2.html <br /> <br />3/1712005 <br />