Laserfiche WebLink
Another comment, in slide show comment made, not consistent with sb, board determining other <br />factors that may be appropriate by board and water court (roman 6 page 2), not for the board to <br />dictate to the court. Mindful of board's time and others, end there, happy for any questions. <br />Ray Wright: What is opinion about ownership along stretch and what would be appropriate. <br />Chris: access is it. Board consider access, but the rules don't say access, public vs. private <br />ownership. Adjacent ownership shouldn't determine water right. <br />Ray: assuming sufficient work has to happen in channel, that would suggest complicity btwn <br />agency appropriating water right and owner. <br />Chris: most situations would but may have situation where city owned one side and private on <br />other side could affect inchannel w/o access from private owner on adjancent bank. <br />Ray: this appears to be akin to a water park, a created water park for specific purposes. That <br />precludes some other recreational uses. Perhaps intertubing or fishing or swimming would no <br />longer be appropriate in some of these improved stretches. <br />Chris: not agree with premise of question. Use of stream reach for a primary purpose would not <br />necessarily preclude other uses. Don't see where rafting kayaking would preclude intertubing. At <br />certain flows might affect tubing, but don't see where have a conflict that we're aware of with <br />surface water users and anglers. Not sure it would solve, not make it worse either. Depends on <br />design and purpose. May preclude or discourage at certain volumes. <br />Eric Wilkinson: when looked at access in statutes, not only access to stream for rec use but <br />access on the stream. Issue of right to float, not conclusively decided in CO. right in interpreting <br />that there is a right to float (position of org)? <br />Chris: no, not a position yet board hasn't addressed as policy or specific matter. Look at statue <br />roman 3 and thinking property access and in draft rules is the ownership, refers to adjacent lands <br />not underlying lands. Don't see where current rules address this. May be smart to stay out of. <br />EW may need to address underlying too. Something about upper and lower terminus and water <br />in between (didn't understand). <br />Chris: if going to construct something in river will need some kind of legal access to stream. <br />EW: may not have permission of intervening land owner (you would have upper and lower) <br />Chris hoep that very careful in how draft adjacent so that adjacent land ownership not a factor in <br />water appropriation b/c not consistent <br />RK: Issue of shall and may, would it satisfy your concern if BI to BV those conditions be shall <br />and promog other factors be may. Can see where straightforward may not need all engineering. <br />2 <br />