Laserfiche WebLink
itno structure, claim of econ impact less than 1 mil per year. Compare with 1000 water taps in <br />community of 90k water taps and dwarfed that type of impact. Have to do balancing act. Allow <br />other types of water use to operate w/o be impacted too much. <br />Mark Hamilton: lawyer. Potential tug of war. Location of diversions or controls. Statute seems to <br />say appropriate area of inquiry. Regs allow this. If have municipality that wants kayak course <br />upstream in another munic or other district, etc. how has cwcb considered proceeding in right <br />being in corporate boundary <br />RK look in terms of area of coruse or boating course that local gov actually has control over. Not <br />rec involve in in right to float issue. Courts will decide. Not our role to get in. would find <br />favorable response from board if stream seg in question pub or private all put together in <br />cooperative sense. If court conflict, board may have to respond and may not be to advantage of <br />applicant. Make applicant moer concerned about what doing. Local elected officials will have <br />constituiency being represented rather than special interest groups. Public private brings up <br />another issue. Liability. Had several comments previously from liability of structures and <br />liability of local gov that is attractive nuisance. Situation like golden. 1000 cfs most attractive <br />point. Is there liabilty? Have they waived their gov immunity? 400k. sharp PI lawyer go after <br />that. <br />Mark: hear that cwcb wants intergov cooperation before filing but agree no bar from seeking <br />outside boundary. <br />Eric Kuhn. Colleague chris trees had discussion and don't want to repeat. Broader concerns. <br />RK many board members expressed desire to modify rules based on chris's comments. <br />EK: think river district always concerened abt # of issues in leg. Compact issues. Intream flow <br />protection. All water users in court have op to address minimum water use /beneficial use w/o <br />waste. But direction ruels going if making some changes to water rights in general that might <br />catch hold and bothers us. One is question of what wil happen in future. In past if community or <br />downstream irrig district had right, went to court and court adjudicated w/o wasting. Enver been <br />idea of restricting by what might happen in future. Now suggest in example above withhold half <br />based on what speculatively might happen in future. Are you changing and court permission of <br />what might happen in future. Don't view rules. Instream flow diversions for rec purposes are not <br />all that unique. Could make for many types, ie polo pony farm. Golf courses. Lots of marginal <br />water use protected by decrees and don't want to see sit where go to court deny water use based <br />on speculative future use. Also concerned about access issue. Want to look at b/c of polit <br />senstivity of right to float. Almost all require access to stream to do work. Communities can <br />aquire property. If don't have access deny water right. Feds biggest property owner in state so <br />put them in control of future water rights based on access. And these issues will be tried and will <br />be case law based on how tried to direct these. You are naive to put circle around and only one <br />category of water use. Stress desire to work cooperatively. Was on board and staff good at <br />working before hand. Want to work with staff where issues. Ie gunnison, steamboat springs <br />course in place. Rec in canyon is natural so may not meet standards but do in way that. Hope <br />remove stuff abt what might happen in future on rec to court. <br />3 <br />