Recreational Instream Flow Workshop Tanscription of Meeting Tape

Home Browse Search

Glen Porzak I think that's a fair question and that's the so- called Fruita argument. That if Fruita builds a kayak course a then it will have in fact the issue that was originally raised by the CWCB staff memo is that let's say Las Vegas comes in and supports the construction or that type of thing. I again believe that existing law can deal with those kinds of situations and that instance I think anti - exportation statute is more than adequate to deal with that factual situation and could shut down that kind of course. I also think it Greg Walcher How would you use that to shut down the course if you are actually using the recreational flow in the state of Colorado? Glen Porzak Again I think it would largely go to what the intent may uh would be in a given factual setting and whether or not there is that kind of usage that is there. And that's Greg Walcher But I am not talking about conspiracy theory I talking about the growth and economic importance of rafting and boating in Colorado. Which is big, big economics and I think there's a possibility at least that rafting through Westwater canyon may be big economics in Mesa county. Glen Porzak Again you are going to have to look, first of all rafting is a very different beast I guess. Its not a kayak course it's comparing apples to oranges. But again my response would be what if Public Service builds a hybrid of the Shoshone power plant right at that location? You have already got that situation. What if there's a large -scale agricultural diversion that may not be particularly judicious in terms of its use of water? And there's a lot of return flows off of a water diversion and they go out past the state line. Got that situation already under existing law and judge can deal with it in the context of all the different arsenals that are at the disposal of enterprising water attorneys in terms of limiting scope of a water right. You also have to look at the specific intent involved in dealing with an initiation of an appropriation in this situation. And I don't think its fair to paint a broad brush and say oh because there might be a limited situation that could hypothetically exist, that could exist with a whole host of other water rights therefore we have got to throw out the baby with the bath water. Greg Walcher No, I am not saying that and I understand that exceptional situations make bad law. But what I am saying there is a legitimate purpose for recreational flow in a river as you have suggested and that legitimate purpose may apply just as well at the state line as it does in the Vail Valley. My question is. Does that have the potential effect of guaranteeing Colorado's unused water to Las Vegas or California forever? Glenn - Theoretically yes practically no. And I would put my money with recreational flow recreational diversions as being far less danger than we saw recently with filings that were initiated for the fish at the state line. EW I have got Steve over here, we are going I think going to spend a little bit more time here for a minute. Steve Glazer — I want everyone in the room to hear that on this issue I have no complaints with what Glen has said. Glen, I don't know I think Greg and I need to agree about this. Steve Glazer I also want to suggest that are other answers to Greg's questions. What is more important adherence to the Colorado Constitution that says the right to divert shall never denied for beneficial uses? Is that more important than the compact? But in answer to your question about the compact I think um I think the issue is, or one aspect of that is anybody can divert water at the state line for depletions 14