Laserfiche WebLink
Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District <br />02CW038 <br />The State misreads SB 216 and the legislative history. First, the State's position obviates the <br />need to limit the class of appropriators who may seek a recreational in-channel diversion under SB <br />216 to local government entities. However, an important purpose of SB 216 was to preserve local <br />control over recreational in-channel diversions. As stated by Director Kuharich on 5/7/01, "the bill <br />limits the parties that can apply for these water rights to agencies of local government. The reason <br />for this was that we felt there were - these are primarily local control issues." See 5/7/01 Legislative <br />Hearing Transcript at p. 4. Having the CWCB determine the amount of water to be appropriated <br />usurps the very local control that SB 216 was intended to preserve. <br />Furthermore, as discussed above, the legislature did not want the CWCB to have an <br />adjudicatory role in a SB 216 proceeding. The legislature concluded that were the CWCB to have <br />such a role, it would be contrary to the history and tradition reflected in the legislative scheme of the <br />1969 Act which traditionally places the obligation of determining water rights on the water court, not <br />a state agency. See, e.g., Colo. Ground Water Commission v. North Kiowa-Bijou, 77 P.3d at 70 <br />("[r] ights to tributary groundwater and surface waters are deternuned by Colorado's water courts and <br />administered by the state engineer"). <br />B. The CWCB's Findings and Recommendation should not be adopted bv the Court. <br />1. The flow rate of 250 cfs is not the minunum flow for a reasonable recreation <br />experience. <br />-15-