Laserfiche WebLink
immediately after it exits the downstream leg of our whitewater park. <br /> To that end, all of this water is used and re -used seven times before it <br /> leaves the state, after it's gone through our whitewater park. So it is <br /> certainly a non - consumptive use. <br /> I guess we would argue fairly strongly that the current system works. <br /> And I'll be the first one to say it's expensive, because the Water <br /> Conservation Board has cost us a fortune in court. But it also works. <br /> And I guess the message there is that the only objector that stayed in <br /> our case, the only reason we went to court was because of the Water <br /> Conservation Board. No water supplier is objecting to our right. No <br /> water supplier is left in our case. And I know they will bring someone <br /> from Clear Creek County up here. But I would point out that we had <br /> discussions with all the water users above stream and all the water <br /> users down stream. And to that end, we subordinated 41 second feet <br /> of our claim to the upstream users, to satisfy what they told us their <br /> concerns wore. If they had concerns beyond that, they did not <br /> verbalize them to us. Additionally, we, as part of settling with Clear <br /> • Creek County, provided them with free -of- charge, 25 acre -feet of <br /> senior water. Remember, what we filed on is fairly junior water. This <br /> is 25 acre -feet of very senior, from annual yield, trans - mountain, <br /> Diddler. [sp] •Tunnel water. In addition to that, we have supplied them <br /> with the option to purchase another 100 acre -feet of that water and <br /> they have that option for ten years. They have a first- right -of - refusal <br /> at whatever market rate there is at that point in time for an additional <br /> five years. So we have worked very hard within the current system to <br /> pacify the needs of other water suppliers on the river. And that is done <br /> through the current system. And we believe the current system works <br /> and works fairly well. <br /> I guess the last thing I would say is that Golden and a number of other <br /> communities have invested or are in the process of investing an awful <br /> lot of money into whitewater parks and they're doing it for generally <br /> economic development reasons. And it is just inappropriate to change <br /> the rules that they set out under mid -stream on them, literally mid- <br /> stream on them. With that, I would take any questions. Thank you. <br /> Mme. Chair: Are there questions for Mr. Hartman? Senator Perlmutter. <br /> Sen. Perlmutter: Dan, you said that the current system works. But what's wrong with <br /> the system that the Water Conservation Board is proposing here? <br /> Mme. Chair: Yes, Mr. Hartman. <br /> D. Hartman: Mr. Perlmutter, Senator Perlmutter, I guess I would say our particular <br /> concerns with that is, is it becomes another bureaucratic stop on the <br /> April 12, 2001 <br /> Page 11 <br />