My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
SB01-216 Senate Committee on Public Policy and Planning
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
3001-4000
>
SB01-216 Senate Committee on Public Policy and Planning
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/8/2010 9:03:31 AM
Creation date
6/2/2010 12:06:13 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
Description
SB01-216
State
CO
Basin
South Platte
Water Division
1
Date
4/12/2001
Author
Senate Committee on Public Policy and Planning
Title
SB01-216 Senate Committee on Public Policy and Planning
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
41
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
season now. In May we would get to the high season where we would <br /> claim up to a thousand second feet if it's available in the river. Should <br /> an upstream user that we have subordinated to file a right and obtain a <br /> right in the future, then that 41 second feet would come out of the <br /> thousand we are currently after or lesser amounts during other seasons <br /> when there's less water in the river. <br /> Mme. Chair: But you already had a certain number of second feet. What did you <br /> already have before you went to court? <br /> D. Hartman: We have — Golden has a certain amount of diversion right, depending <br /> upon what time of the year it is and how much water is in the river that <br /> we use for our water system to deliver water to the citizens of the city. <br /> That water is diverted upstream of our whitewater course. And so that <br /> water is not usable to us. To this end, we are kind of filing against <br /> ourselves. <br /> Mme. Chair: Thank you. <br /> D. Hartman: But we didn't object. <br /> Mme. Chair: Senator Matsunaka. <br /> Sen. Matsunaka: I'm still trying to figure this out. What happens to the upstream users if <br /> they wanted to put in a similar kayaking course? What happens to <br /> them? <br /> D. Hartman: Well, under our system, we would say water upstream has to, to the <br /> extent our whitewater course filing is calling the river, that water <br /> would have to come downstream. But a whitewater user upstream <br /> from us would want water to go through their course anyway. It <br /> would certainly have no affect on their developing something like a <br /> whitewater course. I think the upstream users concern is, is that they <br /> file on a water right and because Clear Creek is a very over <br /> appropriated stream, anything they file on now is going to be very <br /> junior water. They're going to have to take that in very high flow <br /> seasons and generally put it to storage or use it for augmentation so <br /> they can stretch that out and make it deliverable when they need it. So <br /> their concern would be that when there are higher flows in the river <br /> and a junior right might be in priority, we will be calling it <br /> downstream for our kayak course. That's why we have subordinated <br /> 41 second feet of our ability to call to upstream users based on their <br /> requests. <br /> Mme. Chair: Senator Matsunaka. <br /> April 12, 2001 <br /> Page 13 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.