Recreational Instream Flow Workshop Tanscription of Meeting Tape

Home Browse Search

M anywhere else in the state. And that alone should not be consideration as to whether that would restrict our ability to continue to use water for beneficial use in the state of Colorado. EW We have got Patti and then Eric and then we will have to cut it off. Patti Wells — Just a comment then a question. I think that it's not. it really doesn't help to say why are you guys here, leave us alone. I mean we have a couple policy, over arching policy statutory obligations. One is to make sure that Colorado's water is preserved and conserved and used for maximum beneficial use within the state, in compliance with the compacts. That's a concern of ours and a legitimate concern. On the other hand we are supposed to protect the natural environment to a reasonable degree through instream flows that are not considered diversions but look a lot like recreational flows. So there's no reason for us not to be concerned. This is our job, this is what we do. Recreational instream flows or recreational diversions whatever you want to call them. It's true they fit within the Fort Collins case, it is also true that the Fort Collins case was kind of a surprise to a lot of people. So it's it's, and its being brought to a head by a very large flow. So we are trying to work our way through the issue. So I think it's fair for us to be here. Obviously a lot of people are concerned. But you kind of skipped over the part where existing law is going to take care of all the questions about waste, and what is beneficial use, and administration. Could you explain to me how the law is going to take care of that? If the course operates on 300 cfs and the appropriation is for 500 cfs. How do you determine what's waste and what isn=t? Glonn Porzak that's, those are excellent points you had. Given the limited amount of time I did not go into that intdetail although that is a significant component of our point by point response to the position papers and we addressed each of the concerns with respect to waste and administration, etc., etc. But If you get right down to it, if you truly treat these like a water diversion, which is what they are. Then all of the issues with respect to intent, can and will doctrine, water availability whether or not it's administrable by the State Engineer. Each one of those you have got a well established body of law that directly addresses each of the issues. For example, if someone Is being wasteful with respect to a situation. If you just built a chute and no one really is using it it's just a guise for trying to control the river or future appropriations or shut down an upstream county. That is just as administrable as a municipality that might divert large quantities of water and not be able to put it to beneficial use, or an inefficient agricultural diverter. In fact, I submit that the kayak course thing is a lot more administrable because your diversion and use is all in the same place. And you know, it's much harder to hide. One of the things Gary eluded to, is the fact that people say oh if there's just one kayaker on that course, can you make a call? Of course not you're not going to make a call in that kind of situation. The fact of the matter remains though, if you go down to Golden, virtually every daylight hour you have got dozens upon dozens of people that are there using the course particularly on the weekend. Can you make a call at night? Is it a 24 hour diversion? No it's not, and it would be ludicrous to suggest unlike a instream flow which is there 24 hours a day 365 days a year. If you don't have a use going on, no one going to making a call nor should any call be honored. But that something that the State Engineer is capable of determining. Eric Kuhn — I just wanted to bring up something. I think we are trying to paint to many issues into one broad brush. O.K. I think we have got, we have talked three different kinds of problems. Today, I would hope we keep them distinctly separate. And there are overlaps I would agree they all overlap each other. The first one is, not in no particular order is the impact of large rights downstream of mountain counties where you take up exchange potential. That is an issue that needs to be addressed, O.K. And whether Golden gets this right or not, that issue isn't going away. So that has to addressed and it's there elsewhere. A second issue are these kind of parks that we talk about where there are structures where they are relatively small in size. Where there's design issues. And you know that's a second issue. A third issue which we haven't discussed is, how do we address recreation from where I from which is in the main- 15