Laserfiche WebLink
Upper Gunnison River Water Coizservancy District <br />02CW038 <br />stream flow and a need to limit recreational in-channel claims to an amount that would still allow <br />development of foreseeable upstream uses and development of compact entitlements in particular. <br />Though there are some references to the desire for a"min;mum amount" standard, the more <br />predominant theme was a desire to insure that only reasonable amounts would be allowed an&to <br />balance recreational in-channel diversion demands with the needs of upstream development and <br />development of compact entitlements.8 <br />8 See April 12, 2001 Hearing at p. 28 (remarks of Chris Paulson: "And whether you do it <br />through state legislation telling the Water Court what the criteria have to be or if you allow the <br />Conservation Board under certain criteria to allow for the filing of these recreational flows where <br />they can manipulate the timing and the quantities given the recreational benefit, that's the policy <br />decision that's before you."); April 18, 2001 Hearing at p. 12 (remarks of Senator Fred Anderson, <br />Emeritus: Question: "Senator Anderson, could you tell me what you have in mind whPn you talk <br />about standards? Standards related to what?" Answer: "Well, quantity, because we're tallcing <br />about cubic feet per second of flow." Question: "You mean [unintelligible] like a limit?" <br />Answer: "Well, it's going to have to be somewhere, but you don't take the whole stream. <br />Because if you take the whole stream, then you know you've got trouble. And where is the place <br />in between that's reasonable?"); p. 33 (remarks of attorney Bob Trout representing the Northern <br />Colorado Water Conservancy District: "But I think what we're really loolcing at here is the issue <br />of how much is enough for one of these water rights ultimately is going to be a policy balancing <br />issue, balancing the claim needs for a particular course at a particular place against the potential <br />needs for future development upstream"); Transcript of May 8, 2001 Hearing in the House <br />(hereinafter "May 8, 2001 Hearing") at p. 3(remarks of Rep. Spradley: "The Board will then <br />conduct a review of the water claim that includes opportunities for public comments an.d analyze <br />the effects the water claim would have on future water development. Those findings are then <br />submitted to the water court. It does not replace the water court it, it sends those findings to the <br />water courts. A need for this legislation has come a result of certain local districts filing very <br />large water claims for in channels water diversion for recreational purposes. These are far boat <br />chutes and kayalc runs, primarily. It makes sense that attention be given to the impact of these <br />-16-