Water Fight Could Soak CO Producers

Home Browse Search

JUN -18 -2003_ 08:51 CROW_ PUBLICATIONS 3037220155 P.01 W @STERN .UVESTOOK JOURNAL Water t could soak CO producers fign By Sarah IL Roen WLJ Assoc a w F.diitor The tie vote regarding a water use issue in the Col- orado Supreme Court could mean bad news forproducers, because it allows a lower court deasion that recognizes new water rights for recre- atian to remain in place. . As with many western states, Colorado is a priority - use state when it comes to watenrights. This recent case xecopized recreational use of water to be a priority, mean- ing it's a valid claim for wa- ter, similar to livestock or crop watering. Agreeably, recreational use of water is important to the economies of many cities in the state, but agriculture interests -are wor- ried this change could affect their water flow rights to ac- commodate recreational use. The big push for recre- ational use to be recognized in Colorado seems to be com- ing from citizens who want water for kayaking parrs. Other states are seeing sim- ilar movement; in Wyoming, residents want water alloca- tions for fishing Producers in California and Oregon. were also faced with related prob- lems when the court had to decide between water for salmon or for irrigation. Regardless of alternate us- age, Colorado producers are beginning to question how their limited supply of water will be allocated, now that a neutral decision has been made by their Supreme Court. Up until about 15 years ago, Colorado law on- ly recognized the beneficial uses ofwater inside a river or stream as being agricultural, municipal or domestic. The prior appropriations system for claims to water ruts the western states em- ploy basically means that en tities have to get in line to claim their water rights. Ac- cording to Allison Needham, litigation coordinator for the Division of Water Resounts, each entity receives a prior- ity date and then that entity receives all oftheir water fast before the next entity receives what is left to fill their water claim — and on down the line until the water supply runs out. tlae line, but they're also ask- ing for hpge appropriations. If an entity comes behind these kayaking parks, it will then have to wart for the wa- ter to go to recreational pur- poses before they will be al- lowed any water. &ecutive Vice President of the Colorado Farm Bureau, Ray Christensen, says they have submitted a brief op- posing the ruling because they feel this lower court de- cision has the potential to in- jure agricultural water rights. "It leaves us status quo, which sends a signal these cities can go ahead and file for the water," said Christiansen The cities involved i ti this particular case were Golden, Vail and Breckenridge. If these cities do choose to Me for that water, then what could happen is that the sec -. tion of the stream they file for cannot be diverted, im- pounded, or created into a reservoir. In the event there are agricultural water rights involved in that segment of the stream or below it, Chris- tiansen says aproducer may have to hire a lawyer and go into water court to see how they are affected because they simply will not know. `Where are more questions than there are answers," said Chxistiaxisen. 'Phis is a huge issue far agriculture and this is another decision nbt look - irng in our favor_" He added that the Farm Bureau is not opposed to recreational use, they just simply feel' it could send a signal to other cities to also file for water rights for this purpose, which further com- plicates and jeopardizes wa- ter needed for agriculture. The Division of Water R8- sources is also evaluating this decision, although their job is only to administer the xul- ing. In her evaluation, Need- ha realized kayaldng parks are m applying for large allo- cations of water, some of which are not even available in the streams. If no other restrictions are put in place, their requests could mean there isn't water left for the next person down the line. The Attorney General in Colorado, Ken Lane, says agricultural and municipal to this passage and did not cision that will cause future fall under SB216 regulations. problems and no appellate Normally, the Colorado confirmation that them isno Supreme Court would have longer a diversion require" made a definite decision on went," said Christiansen_ the water flow issue through `This outcome sent the mes- a majority vote. However, it sage to Judges Hayes and was not the case in this in Ossala tbat issue is not stance, since one of the sev- as cut and dried as they be- enjudges had to remove him- Heve_" self from the panel since he He added that the Col - had a personal vested inter- orado Farm Bureau contin- est in this case in a lower ues to stay on top of this is- eourt. The even number of sue for their producers. The presidmgjudges left roomfor Colorado Livestock Associa- a tie, which is ultimately tion and Colorado Cattle - what happened, allowingthe men's Association are also lower court's decision to re- opposed to the decision and main in place. plain to stay on top of the sit - "No opinion means no uation for their members. — strained language in the de- WIJ