Officials: Water Rights Ruling Good for City

Home Browse Search

The Steamboat Pilot: Officials: Water rights ruling good for city Page 1 of 2 • The Steamboat Pilot NEWS advertisement Officials: Water rights ruling good for city By Christine Metz, Staff Reporter, Tuesday, March 15, 2005 �bEAS( A Colorado Supreme Court decision on Gunnison's application for recreational water rights bodes well for Steamboat Springs, city officials said. . stea,nboatseafood,cot On Monday, the state Supreme Court ruled that the Colorado Water Conservation for more infYnrration Board erred in limiting Gunnison's recreational in- channel diversion application to Catering 250 cubic feet per second. Our Retail Store The ruling helped clarify a 2002 state law, which will be applied to Steamboat ( e Proc Springs' RICD application when it comes before the water court in August. Famous jerky City Attorney Tony Lettunich said the ruling vindicated the city's position that how the municipality wishes to use the water is crucial in granting a RICD. New Lunch enu Sea or Land... "According to today's ruling, our intent must prevail. Anti - recreational interests can't Served lip force us to have a bunny slope when we want a black diamond kayak course, Lettunich said. F r ' Daily The state law stipulates that a recreational water right should be for the minimum &CA IA amount necessary to provide a "reasonable recreational experience." e _ The court's decision solidified what a reasonable recreation was. The ruling said that at a minimum a reasonable recreation could include "merely floating a kayak" and at a maximum it could encompass "a world class expert course requiring nearly the entire flow of a given stream." In determining the reasonableness of the RICD application, the courts would have to consider how much of the water in the river is taken up by previous water rights and the amount of water in the river basin itself. City Water Attorney Glenn Porzak said the state water board overstepped its boundaries when it reviewed the Gunnison case. "They didn't review the application that was filed in the Gunnison case. They reviewed the application they wanted to see. And that is exactly what they did in Steamboat," Porzak said. The court's decision also stated that the water court erred in never defining what the minimum amount was for a reasonable recreational experience. The decision pointed out that the court did not have enough information from the state water board to make a proper analysis. "I don't know what is going to be the basis to the opposition other than just trying to run up costs," Porzak said. "I don't think they have any grounds." President of the Upper Yampa Water Conservancy District Tom Sharp, who has opposed the city's filing, said there are issues in the Steamboat case not addressed in the Gunnison decision. The type of use for the RICD and late season flows, which were concerns in the Steamboat case, were not covered in the Gunnison decision, he said. The water court's decision for the Steamboat case still could be appealed by the applicants or opposition and taken to http:// www. steamboatpilot.com/section/news /storypr /28996 3/15/2005