|
<br />September 26, 2003 · Crested Butte News' · page 9
<br />
<br />. group, says. that it was apparent
<br />that the stateJs concern with the
<br />RICD appli~ation was due to its
<br />long-ter~ plan for additIonal
<br />transmpuhbtiri diversion. liMy
<br />opinion is th'a! this is, really the
<br />first '9me ~he pr~~ense wa~ gone;.
<br />the state's t~Se rested; to'8 large
<br />would in fact facilitate diver.. and others. .The. QWCBJs recom- 'extent, on pro:viding. for. cli"ier- .
<br />sions projects. mended flow of 250 cis through- sions;1J . says Reed, adding, "I
<br />The idea of obtaining an out the five-montll period serves think there has been, a . definite
<br />RICD right began to gain steam in to keep more water unspoken for a'tt~ritp~ - to. hide' ',.any state
<br />iDOl, when it became evident that th~n if the UGRWCD's lar~er involvement in future trans-
<br />Last weekl s trial in. water a, wmtewater par~' for kayakers . . request was met, t:I)~s,. theoreti.., mountain dive1Jsioils. But.J think
<br />court regarding the Upper and. rafters would become a reali- cally, assuring the avail~biHty of -iti s going on/i
<br />Gunnison . River. Water ty. An.RICO right is desigile~ to that much more water which For now; Reed will continue,
<br />COnSE;l'Vancy District's (UGRW- ensure' that a' cer~ain supply of could be diverted for Front Range to stay up-tcr--date on the issue,.
<br />CD) applica.tion for a recreational water will be guaranteed to pro... purposes, .. 1 ...:1'::- tt. clio · th tin
<br />ch () h th th ...IL l' ' 11 d Inc UUUlg: a en In}; e mee gs
<br />in':' armel diversion RICD rig t teet e purposes of e park. After . SUt:u a surp us IS ca e a rnar- f th St t - · d W. . t S I
<br />f th hit k 1 aki- 1 1 'th th .. k t b'l · Id It. Ll.." f th o. e a eWI e a er UP? X
<br />or e w ewater par was arge.. spe ng at engt '1 W~ e recre- e a e Yle. IS u Ie SlZ~ 0 e, - I · t ~ ti ., (SWSI) 1 . .
<br />ly consumed by disCussion about ation community and considering. marketable yield that could make . m la v~. hich h .b li P anm~
<br />th th ch h h ch' h ld · t b ak d'. · -. I 'T'l......" process, wee eves COll "
<br />e state's concern ~t su' a rig t ow su a ng t wou rmpac or .Ie . lverStOn' p ans~ ~ l ' ' · t. ,. rl ..
<br />would impair its ability to divert . the rest of the UGRWCDi s respon- UGRWCD's expert wimess, for~ a so~: Pd~m.' .co~p se tran~..
<br />t to f th b · Whit th 'b~l. · f a1 HUn ' d' D tm t f N tu 1 moun aln IverSlon componen ·
<br />wa er OUl 0 e aSI1l~ e e' $1 1 lties, a ann g was ma e mer epar en O. - a ra 4'''1'1l be d - ~ thiri 1
<br />. state has been quiet abo~t any in March 2002. The RICO right, as Resources director Jim Lockhead, SWSI d om,~ :v~~ tr g can 5<}
<br />intentions of transmonntain diver- filed, would guarantee flows from testified that the UGRWCD' s I t . - d' oes~ ~ hue ~=unf
<br />sian, the trial indicated a blatan~ May 1 through September 30 application would not imp~ir ;:n 1VerslO~~ ,~~s, a . h ~d
<br />interest in doing s~r at least at ranging from 270 cubic feet per diversion aHem~ts. However, the b e .:~uru , thin. we s 0 't
<br />some point in the future:- . . second (cfs). to ,1,500 . ds. These CVVCB ~xpert ~estified othen;vis:. . ~d:~it~;e~ ~ we ,can o.
<br />One to a broad dispanty In requested flows, says UGRWCD But whde pubUc statements mdt- P 'N.th G' . Walch . .. ,
<br />how much water the UGRWm manager Kathleen Curry, refleCt cate diversion is not an issue .right . ti . w: t er tJ . D. a::xe;:uf
<br />believes should be reserved for the best balance between the nol'Vi the trial was diffe.rent~ 'Nvetu 1 ~ oRt 0 ,e ep '. enR od '
<br />. 1. d h ch th d f · 1. " all' kill 11Th h" a ra . esources, nor 0
<br />recreationa ,use an ow mu e _ nee S 0 recreationa lStS- s . _ - e. emp ,asls w~s._ ~o~- Kuharich, . director of the dvCB
<br />state's Colorado Water levels-and the needs of ranchers~ 'pletelv on transmountam .diver- ~.ail bl f r ' ' .. t. .'
<br />COB d." C "I weJ.1i:: av a e 0 commen.. '
<br />, onservation oar lllQ!!, says urry.' twas .
<br />(CWCB) ~e1ieves is appro-- I I astounding. We had anticipat-
<br />priate, Division. 4 Water "1 think there has been ed a discussion about the'
<br />, Court Judge Steven Patrick merits of our application but
<br />postponed a decision until a definitecittempt to hide they specifically discussed
<br />the early months of 2004. ,diversion projects.'1
<br />"It doesn't matter any state involvement in future In fad, Curry says that in
<br />whether it's Union Park or a . d. B the state's opening rema.rksJ
<br />pump-back system, so lon~. transmountain iversions. U~ the. state claimed that the
<br />as while I'm :hvernor the I think it's going on." UGRWCD's application was
<br />headwaters of e Gunnison ' nothing more than a sub:-
<br />River will stay in the. -Ramon Reed terfug-e to cover up their on~<f
<br />· Gunnison River," , said. , _ in,; effort to block transmoun- .
<br />Owens at Western State College's Preceding last week~s trial, a. tam diversion~ But citirig his opin-
<br />Water Workshop on July 23, 2003: hearing took place in September ion that there were not enough
<br />He then c introduced 2002 with the CWCB, a board facts. to support .either flow
<br />Referendum A, which would under the auspices of the state/s regil;rte, Judge Pat~ick delayed
<br />enable bonding for water projects Department of Nahtral Resources. m~g a decision. .
<br />tIuoughout the state. He added At this hearin~ the OVCB made a ' Ramon Reed, president of
<br />thatl. as he envisions the money formal finding that the RICO -right P~oplp Opposing- Water Exvort
<br />being put. to use, the numerous should never exceed 250 ers d~~ Raids (POWER~, a local citizens'
<br />existing reservoirs in Colorado the entire period from May 1
<br />could be expanded slightl)1, resu1t~ c through September 30: It is this
<br />ing in "significant additions to the findirig that the UGRWCD and
<br />overall water supply/' Such fur- CWCB went to trial over last week.
<br />ther ~~velopment of water storage and it is this finding that Judge
<br />would theoretically provide water Patri<;:k will attempt to sort..out. But
<br />for growth while preserving due to time c9nstraints in the five-
<br />enough for irrigators as well. day trial, a decision is not expeqed
<br />Jilt woul~ allow the Front until at least January 2004.
<br />Range to use m~re .Front HoweveIj it was the stateJs
<br />Rang,e/Eastern Slope water so concern with how the RICD right
<br />that they "don't J"\ave to compete would impact the state's ability to
<br />for Western Slope water/' added di~~rt water out of the Gunnison
<br />'Owens, refuting s~ggestions it River basin that perturbs Curry
<br />
<br />. S~ale que$tions whitewater
<br />park's impact on diversions
<br />
<br />The truth com.es ,out
<br />
<br />by Pete Sharp
<br />
|