State is Telling Us We're Not Important

Home Browse Search

i ?- 2- Gunnison Country Times • Thursday, September 18, 2003 . State is telling us we're not important As I sat and listened in ,e Water Court this week, I was amazed at the argu- ments being presented by the lawyers for the State of Colorado, representing the Colorado Water Con- servation Board. I became angry - angry because the CWCB and their lawyers COMME are being paid with our tax dol- lars to represent the people of this state, and they are in essence say- ing that the citizens who live here in Gunnison are less important than the developers on the Front Range. I am not a lawyer, but part of what angers me is that those lawyers and professionals in court are not presenting a legal case so much as a political one; a case based on political pressures and big-money business dealings. They are not arguing water law, as much as they are saying that the way we want to use the water here in the Gunnison Basin is less important than the way it might be used if diverted to the Front Range instead. In this court case, the Upper Gunnison River Water Conser- vancy District has filed for a water right called a "Recreational 2 In Channel Diver- ARY Upper Gunnison Dis- sion" (referred to in court as an RICD), which is intended to insure water for rafters, kayaking and other boating at the new Gunnison White- water Park. The trict has asked for flow amounu ranging from 270 cubic feet per second (cfs) to 1,500 cfs during the months of May through September. The State of Colorado counters that only 250 cfs are necessary for a "reasonable recre- ational e?cperience." For reference, the Memorial Day flows at the park this year were over 2,000 cfs - and this was a relatively low year (we are in a drought, after all.) Thanks a lot, CWCB, for gra- ciously granting us 250 cfs; you really know how to have fun! But then, this is not the part of the case that really bothers me, because the boating experts and the water engineers can figure out what reasonable numbers really are and the court will surely rule accordingly. Now comes the real objection- able par of the state's opposition to NT myvote Where Gunnison Valley's voice is 4eard Will escalating gas and electric heating costs compel you to investigate alternative energy methods in your home? Please emailyour "yes" or "no" resPonse to: myvote@gunnisontimes.com Anonymous, easy voting now available on-line at: WWW.gunnisontimes.COCTI All 11 people who responded to last week's Myvote had no particular plans for commemorating 9/11. this water right. According to their attorney's opening statement and the "expert opinion report" pre- sented in tlus trial, the State of Col- orado believes that this water right should be denied (or reduced to absurdity) because it might impair future development and consump- tive use of the water that Colorado is entitled to under the multi-state Colorado River Compact. Furthermore, it would cause that impairment, because it would prevent future trans-mountain diversion projects upstream from whitewater park! I have used the words "might impair" here instead of "will impair," because they are not talk- ing about any actual proposed project - only the possible specula- tion under some future scenario that does not exist today. I'm not angry just because the state, which is supposed to repre- sent me just as much as someone on the Front Range, thinks that more trans-mountain diversion is a good thing - although that is cer- tainly enough to be angry about here in Gunnison. I'm also angry because the state is saying that some ethereal potential future use of the water for Front Range de- velopment is more important than what we want to use it for in Gun- nison today. This is morally indefensible, and, I think, legally indefensible as well. Colorado water law does not give precedence to one type of ben- eficial use over another, or to one locale of the state over another. The primary tenet has always been "first in time equals first in right," meaning that if we apply and put the water to a valid beneficial use first, we get the water right first. Period. And where is the Gunnison Basin representative to the GWCB, Keith Cadin, in all this? Instead of defending us (with plenry of justi- fication) to the rest of his board, he voted to oppose Gunnison's RICD water right application. While I heard Mr. Catlin state in a public meeting just last month that he would oppose any attempt to have the state build or support trans- mountain diversion from the Gun- nison, does he know what his lawyers and staff are saying in court? Just how dumb do they think we are here in the sticks? The Gover- nor tells us that there will be no trans-mountain diversion from Gunnison under his watch, and the CWCB project manager claims fervently that the new Statewide Water Supply Initiative is not in- tended to assist uans-mountain di- version. But at the same time their lawyers are arguing in court that we can't develop our water here be- cause it would prevent future trans-mountain diversions. Well, drop your self-serving ar- rogance, CWCB. The developers and growth on the Front Range are not more unportant than we are! (Reed is a businessman in Gun- nison, and' 25-year resident of Pithin. He served two four-year terms on the Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District and is the current president of Gunnison Basin P. 0. W. E. R. and chairman of the Gunnison County Demotratic Party.) s