Laserfiche WebLink
Jeff How: strong proponent of economic benefits of instream flows. Drive through canyon any <br />summer day see why importatn to economy of gs. East and west slope. Should be looking at and <br />recognize benefits. As build rules and foundation of leg important to protect against abuse of <br />opportunity this presents. Unfortunate leg opted to give to certain entities that have more of an <br />opportunity to abuse the concept. Interesting that rec and municipal districts not represented but <br />other districts like water and san that have no rec at all do have the opportunity. Concerned <br />facilitites potential abuse of what setting up. Vigilant about do what can to recognized legit rec <br />purposes while avoid abuse that this concept gives to certain entities as set up rules. Can see tug <br />of war in lots of places in regs. One place in particular and please clarify is among criteria cWCB <br />comments on such as will this rec flow adversely affect potential exchanges or ability to do new <br />storage projects. That kind of analysis and CWCB findings be presumptively correct in water <br />court concerned that spectulative future uses be over current legitimate rec uses of water. What <br />was your thinking in portion of regs. <br />TK: generally rules developed over sev different board meetings. Input of board and public. <br />Mish mash and accepted almost all comments. Idea was to say what board is concerned about. <br />Tug of war btwn potential upstream development and present or potential rec uses. Board wants <br />to know if res may be built and add to equation. Not to deny aps be of upstream exchange or <br />reservoir. Have all facts on talbe and try to go abt water policy /planning in logical way. If <br />comment that rules should be changed to look at along the way. <br />DM: spent lots of time in senate esp public planning. Key issue was balance btwn policy org like <br />us and the ater court. Several members of attorneys, several thing court does well. Not set up to <br />look into the futuer and is a state entity given that responsibility, cWCB. Why see mixed <br />responsibility. If angency does exitt to forcast what is mission that should be given to it. Why see <br />staff make finding. Not crystal ball and guess but work with applicant to see what situation <br />actually is. Why draft rules have request for info we don't normally get and may not get. What <br />board members would like to know. <br />Jeff How: see as creating rec flow levels. Directed to between two points and rate of flow. <br />RK not specifically mentioned. <br />TK: how would lake level work? <br />RK: would need some level. <br />Jeff. also seems to be fairly focused on notion of boating. Contemplated other rec uses like swim <br />and fish <br />RK: not contemplate but statue not exclusionary. Kayak course in golden was catalyst but realize <br />could make filing on entire flow of stream. Want to address econ impact. Important that rec <br />economy esp in west and interior mountains. Probably overriding element. State wide is 7 Is <br />largest in many mountain communities. Have to look to that. Many people make living juen to <br />aug where don't have winter sports. Try to address and integrate into water system. If talk about <br />econ impact also have to look at econ impact of other water uses. Golden put less than half mil <br />2 <br />