Laserfiche WebLink
Mme. Chair: Mr. Kuharich, I know that the CWCB has studied this issue for about <br /> a year. But is your study ongoing or... <br /> Rod Kuharich: Madam Chair and Representative Johnson, the CWCB in May of last <br /> year began discussing this issue right after the Golden filing. And I <br /> can assure you that there was a great degree of denial that such a <br /> water right even existed. And that became the paramount issue to <br /> overcome in determining the Board's position. It was finally <br /> realized, and these are water users ftom across the state, that it was <br /> necessary to put some sideboards on this, that the filings were now <br /> creating.a race to the courthouse. They were creating filings on the <br /> entire flows of the river and that at some point there needed to be a <br /> reviewing body to recommend to the court. And it became very <br /> difficult for them to come to the realization that, as Representative <br /> Spradley said, there was a hole in the dyke, and this is the response <br /> that was developed over time with several hearings at the Board. <br /> Now, in terms of the study, I can't say there has been a formal study. <br /> • We have been involved and developed expertise on these types of <br /> flows by virtue of our participation in the Golden case. So we have <br /> studied control structures, we have studied flow records, we have <br /> studied kayakers and kayakers' perception of these. And all these <br /> have been developed in response to litigation. So we have <br /> • developed a level of expertise among the staff that has been as a <br /> • response to - responding to the litigation. So, you know, in terms of <br /> a formal study, I would have to say no, there is not a formal study. <br /> In terms of developing the body of knowledge within our office, yes, <br /> we have done that. <br /> Mme. Chair: Representative Plant? _ • <br /> Rep. Plant: Thank you. I just wanted to touch on something that I'm not quite <br /> clear on. Representative Spradley had said that we were trying to <br /> codify [unintelligible] through this bill and there's a section of the <br /> bill that says, "No decree shall be entered adjudicating a change of <br /> condition in water rights to a recreational in- channel diversion." But <br /> it seems to me, in checking through some of the legal opinions that <br /> have been handed down, that that has been specifically authorized, <br /> not recreational per se, but any change in a water right. In <br /> [unintelligible] it says, "[unintelligible] include application for a <br /> change of a water right," and that water matters are within the <br /> [unintelligible] jurisdiction of the water court. So are we kind of — at <br /> least in this sense, going counter to what the courts have decided? <br /> Representative: [unintelligible] <br /> May 7, 2001 <br /> Page 8 <br />