Applicant's Closing Brief: Case No. 02CW038

Home Browse Search

{ Upper Gunnison River Water Coizservancy District 02CW038 channel uses2; recreational in-channel flow claims that might hamper fu.ture water rights development such as changes, exchanges, or storage projects3 andlor that might impair Colorado's ability to z See Transcript of April 12, 2001, Hearing of the Senate Committee on Public Policy and Planning (hereinafter "April 12, 2001 Hearing") at p. 1(remarks of Senator Entz: "One appropriation currently before the Water Court for a maximum of 1000 cfs, which represents the entire stream of Clear Creek."); Transcript of April 18, 2001, Hearing of the Senate Committee on Public Policy and Planxiing (hereinafter "April 18, 2001 Hearing") at p. 28 (remarks of State Engineer Hal Simpson: "The 1,000 cfs water right Golden claims is available less than 1 percent of the time, looking at historic record. Therefore, they're blocking 99 percent of the other water that would be available for appropriation, especially by towns like Empire and Silver Plume and others. Likewise, the Breckenridge filing for 800 cfs is available less than 1 percent of the time. So our concern are these large claims. Are they going to block or prevent future development."); at p. 32 (remarks of First Assistant Attorney General Steve Sims: "Once again, the problem with these'water rights is that they allow - potentially allow a water user to command the entire flow of the stream. For instance in the Golden case, the average flow of Clear Creelc at the point of the kayak course is 130,000 acre feet per year. The Golden claim is for 250,000 acre feet per year. This shows you that they are really reaching beyond the norm."); Transcript of May 7, 2001 Hearing of House Committee on Agriculture, Livestock, & Natural Resources (hereinafter "May 7, 2001 Hearing") at p. 4(remarks of CWCB Director Rod Kuharich: "The courts had identified a water right associated with boat chutes in the Ft. Collins case. We have seen a spate of filings that are attempting to appropriate all the water in the stream for in-channel recreational or boating courses. This bill is an attempt to add equity to the process where the Water Conservation Board would review applications and make recommendations to the court."); p. 8(remarks of CWCB Director Rod Kuharich: "They were creating filings on the entire flows of the river and that at some point there needed to be a reviewing body to recommend to the court."). 3 See April 12, 2001 Hearing at p. 28 (remarks of attorney Chris Paulson representing the Colorado Water Partnership: "No, what I'm saying is what the Conservation Board has brought before you is a process to allow for some recreational flows that might have an innovative component in terms of timing and amount different than the current system, which is first come first serve, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, whatever you want go file for it, because how can a court right now quantify whether 500 second feet or a thousand second feet is adequate. But -4-