|
<br />City's RICO hearing
<br />
<br />July 24 at college
<br />A hearing for the City 01 Durango's
<br />request for recrf'cltional in-::,I ream channel
<br />diver,ion water rights will be held Mon.,
<br />July 24, in tilt' f ()rt lewi<; (ollf'fw ballroom.
<br />Variom testimonial, will be Clivpn through-
<br />out thC' day with public te<;limony begin-
<br />ning at 5:30 p.m. A schedulf' ,,( presf'nrf'rs
<br />is as follows
<br />10 a.m.: City of Durango
<br />12:30 p.m.: South~:tern Water
<br />ComNvcltion District'
<br />1 :15 p.m.: I d PI~ta. County r'
<br />2 p.m.: Anim.!<; C0flsutiddtf'r1 Ditch Co.
<br />2:45 p.m.: Animas Valley Ditch &:
<br />Water Co.
<br />3:30 jJ.m.: Pop~ Fd.nHly TrLl,'
<br />4 p_m.: US Dept. ,<'If Interior
<br />4:30p.m.: Colofi1do Watel'
<br />Conservation Bo,lrd
<br />5:30 p.m.: r>uhlic comlnent
<br />6 p.m.: City at Durango rebuttal
<br />
<br />\) VI- r a... '" '3 0 -r -<.. \ ~ ~ r e..., t,
<br />I/Q-O/~OO~ PO--~-e. ':2. 0+' .:<
<br />
<br />Fort Lelvis College. The purpose of the
<br />meeting is to consider the city's recent,
<br />application for recreational in-channel
<br />diversion rights"or RICDs.
<br />"We have to snow benefidal use - in a
<br />nutshell that's the baseline for Colorado
<br />water law,". said Durango Director of Parks
<br />and Recreation Cathy Metz, who will be
<br />one of several presenters talking on behalf
<br />of the city. '
<br />. Once testimony - both pro and con - is
<br />heard, the board will recommend to the
<br />Colorado Water Court whether or not to .
<br />approve the application. . .
<br />The dty submitted the application on
<br />Feb. 28 for between 185 and 1,400 cfs of in-
<br />.stream flow, depending on the season, for
<br />the proposed Smelter Boating Park on the
<br />Animas River. The park would include five
<br />control strUctures, or play features, over the
<br />course of about 1,200 feet. The upgrades to
<br />the park, which was the first of its kind in
<br />the nation when built in the late-'80s,
<br />would cost an estimated $500,000,. with
<br />work slated for 2009.
<br />Metz said whitewater recreation is a
<br />viable source of income for the city, with 10
<br />commerdal rafting and kayaking pelmits
<br />for the Animas River issued in 2005. The
<br />RlCDs are just a way for the dty to ensure
<br />that this revenue stream continues, as does
<br />the river that supports it.
<br />~. 1I""'hile the City of Durango is prepared
<br />to invest in these improvements, it is essen-
<br />tialthat the RICD water rights are secured
<br />
<br />-_.__.~_.~.~...._----
<br />
<br />prior to any construction," she said. "The
<br />RICDs will protect the city's investment in
<br />the Durango Boating Park and provide a
<br />reliable source of water for recreational use
<br />ill- the-ffififrP--
<br />. However, several groups and individuals
<br />have come out against all or part of the
<br />idea, including La Plata County, the
<br />Southwest Water Conservation District and
<br />Animas Valley Ditch Owners. Chief among
<br />the opposition's concerns is 'that imple-
<br />mentation of the in-stream water rights will
<br />deprive upstream users of future develop:-
<br />ment water and fail to satisfy the Colorado
<br />River Compact, whereby water will flow,
<br />unused, out o(state.
<br />"Administration of the Durango RICD,
<br />as . proposed, would impair the ability of
<br />Colorado to fully develop and place to con-
<br />sumptive benefidal use its compact entitle-
<br />ments," wrote the conservation district in a
<br />pre-hearing statement to the state water
<br />board. . -' -- - -" .
<br />La Plata County also objects t,o the city's
<br />application based upon concerns over the
<br />. county's upstream constituents an.d its
<br />future ability to develop water use for resi-
<br />dents in the northern county. .
<br />Any future water rights applicants
<br />would be considered junior tothe City and
<br />thus subject to availability, depending on
<br />flows.
<br />The idea of RICJ)s is a somewhat new
<br />and controversial one in Colorado, with,
<br />the state legislature. approving them in
<br />
<br />2002. Since then, several municipalities
<br />have acquired the rights, including
<br />Gunnison, Steamboat Springs and Golden,
<br />but not before rejection from the state
<br />--water board and legal battles in Stat€ water
<br />. court. Last spring, the Colorado Legislature
<br />passed another bill, co-sponsored by Sen.
<br />Jim Isgar, D-Hesperus, meant to rein in the
<br />amount uf water municipalities could
<br />request and further restricting parameters
<br />of the water rights. However, the city sub~'
<br />mitted its request before, the newlaw, thus
<br />making it subject. to 'the prior niles, Metz
<br />said. Sl1l;,.a1so said the dty is prepared for
<br />denial, \Tie~rig Monday's hearing as more
<br />of one !it~tJ'fn.the process.
<br />.IIDon't be surprised if 'it's denied," she
<br />said.., IIGenerally, the recommendation of
<br />the water conservation board is to. deny
<br />such requests.",. ... . ,.- -~ ----
<br />F.rom there, the city will move to
<br />c:olorado Water Court, where its case will
<br />-be'Mtt .itt the-".ba~nty
<br />. Courthouse by DistIict]udge Gregory-
<br />LymaftidJ.&.e.+t.eai'fiig is set for May of 2007.
<br />And although ' the state watet board has
<br />already. indicated a. leaning toward denial
<br />in a pre-hearing statement,water court his-
<br />torically has hag a...differenttake, Metz
<br />noted.
<br />. . 1I1n tbepast, thewaterboard has recom-
<br />mended against RICDs, but in every case,
<br />the judge' hasg~ded hi favor of RICD
<br />applications;Thatgives us an idea of what
<br />we'll be up against." .
<br />
|