Laserfiche WebLink
Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District <br />02CW038 <br />As finally proposed, SB 216 did not contain any objective "minimum amount" standard. <br />Rathei, traditional notions relating to the allowable amount of water were to apply. (See preceding <br />discussion of SB 216's plain lanb age.) This is confirmed by remarks of CWCB Director Rod <br />Kuharich on May 7, 2001: <br />... But I think if you look at the definition, it's an attempt to fit this <br />water right into the process we have now. It tallcs about minunum <br />amount of water necessary to accomplish a reasonable recreational <br />experience. I tlunk [unintelligible] . Reasonable and recreational and <br />are two words that are used in there. <br />And I do thinlc that it's consistent with the test that other water users <br />have to comply with because any water user, be it agricultural, <br />municipal or industrial, is governed by the test of efficiency where it's <br />not all the water they can physically get a hold of, but it's all the <br />water that they can reasonably and efficiently use. And that really <br />becomes the test of what those water rights can appropriate. And I <br />think by this definition, we have placed this water right in the same <br />light that the other waterYight classifications are. [Emphasis added]. <br />Transcript of May 7, 2001 Hearing at p. 6. <br />III. How Senate Bi11216 Applies to This Case. <br />A. Access Reach, and Impact on the CWCB's Instream Flows Are Not In Dispute. <br />In this case, the 102(6) factors regarding appropriateness of the reach, access, and lack of <br />material injury to the CWCB's decreed instream flow rights are not in dispute, and the Court must <br />recreational uses have on our states futures abilities to development and use water resources.") <br />-17-