Laserfiche WebLink
in the bill. It defines recreational in- channel diversion to <br /> [unintelligible] only the minimum flow necessary to support the <br /> recreational activity can be sought with physical controls for <br /> structures defining the upstream and downstream extent of their <br /> rights. The waters are to be controlled by the applicant in the <br /> identified reach with applicant holding an ownership interest in the <br /> lands abutting the reach. <br /> `By way of example, this would mean that the applicant could <br /> potentially obtain a right to the minimum amount of water necessary <br /> to float a kayak for a constructed course consisting of boat chutes <br /> within the reach. [unintelligible] reasonable recreation experience <br /> while ensuring that the entire flow of the reach is not dedicated to <br /> this [unintelligible]. It is anticipated that under the bill the CWCB <br /> will establish further criteria governing such diversions such as <br /> additional guidance upon the appropriate time of day, season of use, <br /> length of reach and minimum utilization demand in order that <br /> additional objective benchmarks for judging the proprietary of such <br /> appropriations are established. • <br /> 'The bill bestows upon the CWCB the obligation to review <br /> applications for recreational in- channel diversion and to submit its <br /> recommendations thereon to the water court prior to the entry of any <br /> decree therefore.. It provides statutory criteria for the CWCB to <br /> follow in fulfilling such responsibilities. It requires the water court <br /> not only to consider the recommendations of the CWCB relative to <br /> the grant or denial of the application, but that the courts specifically <br /> take into account the criteria set forth in Section 37, 92, 102, (5) (b) <br /> including as such may be subsequently supplemented by the CWCB <br /> for rule making. <br /> "Finally, nothing in Senate Bill 216 is intended to create a water <br /> right which did not previously exist by virtue of state Supreme Court <br /> interpretation of Colorado statutes or to affect any impending <br /> challenges to applications for rights of this nature to the extent such <br /> challenges are found to be meritorious under existing law. Further, <br /> \,, __ hereon is intended to modify the rights of owners of real <br /> property, including the beds and banks of streams as such may now <br /> exist." <br /> That is the statement. Clearly it was written by attorneys and they <br /> did not read it out loud. [crosstalk] <br /> Mrrie. Chair: Thank you, Representative Spradley. <br /> May 7, 2001 <br /> Page 2 <br />