Laserfiche WebLink
D. Gunnison Countv is a west slope county heavily deperident upon Colorado's <br />recreation-based economy and the use of water for recreation purposes. Gunnison worked <br />closely with the Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District to plan, finance and <br />implement the kayak course that is currently at the center of this debate. As such, iit is concerned <br />about any negative precedent that might be set with respect to recreation water rights in the <br />instant action. <br />E. Pitkin Countv is a west slope county heavily dependent upon Colorado's <br />recreation-based economy and the use of water for recreation purposes. The city of Aspen, <br />located in the Co unty, cutrently appropriates water for a whitewater course. The course attracts <br />visitors to Pitkin County, reaping economic benefit to the County. As such, the County is <br />concerned about any negative precedent that might be set with respect to recreatioin water rights <br />in the instant acti.on. <br />II. REASONS WHY AMICI PARTICIPATION IS DESIRABLE. <br />The fundamental question in this lawsuit is how should the water court interpret <br />"minimum stream flow" for a"reasonable recreation experience" in the context o:f determining <br />the flow amount for a recreational in-channel diversion ("RICD") application. Additionally, the <br />role of the Colora.do Water Conservation Board in evaluating these RICD applications pursuant <br />to Senate Bill 2:16 ("S.B. 216") is at issue. The Appellant in this matter, the Colorado Water <br />Conservation Board ("CWCB"), asserts, among other things, that the water court must interpret <br />S.B. 216 to decree only enough water to "float a boat," instead of applying the traditional water <br />law principles af waste and speculation. Having just "pnough water to float a boat" makes S.B. <br />216 meaningle:.s and ineffectual in local coxnxnunities' efforts to protect their investnnents and <br />4