Laserfiche WebLink
r <br />Saunders first part of May Thank you very much. <br />Bishop Thank you, appreciate your comments. John Applebaum, <br />will you please identify yourself and who you <br />represent. <br />Applebaum My name is John Applebaum, Colorado River Outfitters <br />Association and let me express my thanks for letting <br />me be here today, I believe that we of the Colorado <br />River Outfitters Association come with a different <br />point of view than you have heard here today. While <br />we believe that Senate Bill 212 does have a viable <br />goal concerning instream flows, it poses a.serious <br />threat to River Water Outfitters throughout the <br />state. Adequate instream flows are crucial to keep <br />recreational sports alive. River rafting generated <br />over $60 million in the state in 1986 and drew <br />_.hundreds of thousands of people to our state. This <br />bill has the potential to cripple our industry and <br />subsequently damage Colorado's tourist economy. <br />Objections to this bill are twofold; firstly we do <br />not feel the Colorado Water Conservation Board should <br />have the exclusive authority to appropriate water for <br />instream flows, and that secondly the Colorado Water <br />Conservation Board should not be the only entity to <br />prevent injuries to instream flow water rights. <br />Because of these objections we hope that you will <br />consider opposing Senate Bill 212 Section 2 <br />of this bill draws a considerable concern. The right <br />to appropriate water for instream flows is just as <br />viable as appropriating flows for agriculture or <br />livestock. These flows are critical for river <br />outfitters, who should have-the same right as any <br />other individual to put that water to good use. For <br />river runners, beneficial use represents instrearn <br />flows. For these reasons we believe it is a <br />—31— <br />