State Battling River District Over Whitewater Park Right

Home Browse Search

, 2003 State battling river district over, whitewater park right Alan Wartes Last year the Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District decided to make use of relatively new legislation and filed for water rights for a "Recreational In-Channel Diversion," to ensure minimum flows for the new Gunnison Whitewater Park. The Colorado Water Conserva- tion Board, a division of the Department of Natural Resources, has vigorously opposed the size of the requested right and is seeking to block it in hearings that begin next Manday in water court in Gunnison. The application is for various flows between May 1 and Sept. 30 each year, from a minimum of 270 cubic feet per second and a. maximum of 1,500 cfs. That rep- resents about 61 percent of the available flow for that time peri- od. The park is designed to oper- ate within a range of 250 to 2,000 cfs. The law requires the CWCB to review any RICD application and make recommendations to the court concerning the impact the right would have on the state's ability to develop available water for "beneficial use." Earlier this year the CWCB board voted to recommend an RICD right of only 300 cfs, with no peak flows. Many local water observers be- lieve the conflict has implications that go beyond how much water the court sets aside for the white- water park. According to UGRW- CD manager Kathleen Curry, the case the state is preparing to pres- ent in court raises an issue that Governor Owens himself has sworn to oppose: the diversion of Gunnison Basin water to the Front Range. "The governor said there won't be any Union Park type diver- sions from this valley so long as he is in office," said Curry. "What we can't figure out is that they are fighting us full bore on (the RICD) and their major argument is that it would block trans- mountain diversion from this basin." An expert report filed in court by the state appears to confirm this assessment. CWCB engineer Randy Seaholm wrote that the proposed RICD would negatively impact the state's ability to make full use of water it is entitled to under the Colorado River Com- pact. According to Seaholm "full development of Colorado's com- pact entitlement will likely de- pend on at least one more significant trans-mountain diver- sion." Seaholm also suggests that the Upper Gunnison Basin may be the most likely source for such a project. "The Upper Gunnison is one of the more viable locations (for trans-mountain diversion) and its removal as a viable option cer- tainly may impair Colorado's development opportunities to some degree," Seaholm wrote. "We relied on the boating com- munity to tell us what is a rea- sonable amount of water for a good recreation experience," Curry said. "They Ean't find a way to refute that, so they are talking about the idea that this impacts their ability to develop the state's compact allocation." Ramon Reed, president of the citizens' group People Opposed to Water Export Raids, believes the state's position in court con- firms what many in the basin have felt all along: that despite public assurances to the contrary, the executive branch is commit- ted to keeping the possibility of the diversion of Gunnisan Basin water alive. Curry agrees. "Governor Owens has put himself in a little bit of a box, while the CWCB folks have literally honed in on this issue," she said. "If they real- ly are serious about their public comments about (trans-moun- tain) diversion, then their argu- ments in court don't make any sense." The trial begins Monday, Sept. 15 at 8:30 a.m. in the Gunnison County Courthouse. ¦