Recreational Instream Flow Workshop Tanscription of Meeting Tape

Home Browse Search

given out and then a copy of a document dated July _20 to McAuliffe that expresses some uh other comments about the recreational in stream flows. So I will give that to everyone. Glen Porzak Thank you very much I am Glen Porzak. I am here representing a number of entities. First of all I am representing the various districts that serve the approximately 60,000 residents of the resort communities from Vail down to Wolcott or better known as the Vail Valley. Also the four largest ski areas in Summit and Eagle counties Vail and Beaver Creek, Um Breckenridge and Keystone resorts. Uh the town of Breckenridge and the City of Golden. Uh, all of those entities have built or are in the process of constructing kayak river courses and together they represent a significant segment of the state's recreation based economy which is one of Colorado's largest and most important industries. As Eric just mentioned I have four handouts. I have got some 25 copies of each. Um the original response to the CWCB's staff memorandum on this issue. There is a response to Eric Wilkinson's position paper that had an attachment of the State Engineers issues on administration. It's also a point -by -point response to Eric's philosophical points and then and finally there is a more detailed discussion of the points I intend to briefly summarize. In general we believe that the CWCB staff and adhoc committee position papers have created some artificial definitions and some artificial distinctions and then used those two artificial items that have been created to claim that we have got a serious problem here. The truth is that if you treat recreation based diversions like any other water diversion there is no problem and existing law can - adequately address all of the issues that are there. Also, contrary to the impression that's given by these positions paper, the law is well settled in this area. Uh, recreationists are not the ones seeking to change the law. We think it's the Conservation Board staff in this instance that is seeking to change uh the law. Uh, really the way we see it is that it's an effort to define whether recreation is a beneficial use and if so how much of the beneficial use is reasonable. I would like to address six specific points. First of all this issue of .........really an incorrect definition. It's not an in stream flow. It's a recreation diversion. It fits directly within the statutory framework of a diversion. Under Colorado law, a diversion or diverter who's controlling water in its natural course or location, ah by means of structures or devices and that's exactly what we are dealing with, and it really is a misnomer to keep constantly referring to this as a recreational instream flow. It implies dams and control devices and it requires a substantial capital investment. In the case of the Golden structure it was in excess 5200,000. Unlike an instream flow where just do go in and do your R2CROSS section and you can file on the various rights. It also has an invariable different purpose. The purpose as you well know of an instream flow is to protect the minimum amount of water necessary to protect the natural environment to a reasonable degree. And that in turn has been based on a cold water fishery. Uh, here we're talking about something that directly is put there for the people and also the streams segments involved are very different. Instream flows typically are for large stream segments or entire stream segments. Here we are talking about relatively short stretches also there are vastly fluctuating amounts. If you could hear him talk about the Golden application that's upwards of 1000 cubic feet well that's for a limited time. If you look at the Golden application it is a different amount as the months progress. The second point is while the Conservation Board and certain people may be in a real panic of concern over this. I suggest that the real water the actual water users have taken a much more rational approach to this. In fact in the context of the Golden application the concerns of the actual water users, people who have water rights have been relatively straightforward negotiations and their issues have been dealt with. And I suggest that, not tongue in cheek that dealing with those who have filed recreational diversions can often times be a lot more easy to deal with than you typically face with negotiating with the CWCB on an instream flow filing. Third. we feel it's not the Conservation Board's job to define what is and is not a beneficial use. The legislation sought by the CWCB staff is an attempt. And if you really analyze it it's an attempt to impose... impose the public trust doctrine in reverse. It's an attempt to dictate what is and is not a beneficial use and then what amount is reasonable if you are going to contend that this is a beneficial use. The fact is, that recreation is a beneficial use and pervasive in the CWCB staff memo is the notion that only the state is responsible enough to decide whether there should be a recreational diversion and the amount of that diversion. And we feel that that attitude that 12