Laserfiche WebLink
Upper Gunni,son River Water Conservancy District <br />02CW038 <br />Kuharich are -onsistent with the legislative scheme of the 1969 Act, particularly the; definition of <br />"beneficial us,-,." <br />The C WCB's role in connection with SB 216 does not allow it to determine tYie appropriate <br />flow for a reci eational in-channel diversion, much as the State may want it to. The State justifies the <br />CWCB's independent deternzination of the "minimum flow for a reasonable recreatian experience" <br />(after conveniently overlooking the phrases "placed to beneficial use" and "pursuant to an <br />application") Dy noting that the words "recreational in-channel diversion" used in the 102(6) factors <br />require the C'JVCB to malce a deternunation whether the application is in fact for a recreational in- <br />channel diversion, in order to make findings about the 102(6) factors in the first instance. And, in <br />order to make: that deternunation, the CWCB claims, circularly, that it must determine whether the <br />application is for the minimum flow for a reasonable recreation experience, since that is what a <br />recreational ui-channel diversion is. <br />Attachment Yv and attached hereto as Exhibit C. This handout provided the CWCB's explanation <br />of SB 216 (tYLe pre-amended version that was first proposed) and stated that the bill:: "allows local <br />governments to obtain recreational water rights; defines "beneficial use" to include in-channel <br />diversions; provides for review by Water Courts regarding injury to other water rigYits; and <br />requires the CWCB to make findings regarding the protection of Colorado's intersbate compact <br />entitlements; the appropriateness of the stream reach for the intended use; reasonabl.e & <br />appropriate water use." <br />-14-