Recreational Instream Flow Workshop Tanscription of Meeting Tape

Home Browse Search

1 minimum flows that could accomplish purposes of some amenities that were then in that park and were administered by South Suburban. I might mention that Bob Cole is here. Bob Cole, represented South Suburban and they were a co- applicant in this case. Essentially what the application asked for in which the decree now provides for by the way. The decree was entered in this case a month or so ago. Is a flow rate of 100 cfs for the operations of three absolute and one conditional boat chute that exists and has existed for some time in the park. These boat chutes essentially are used by people in the park to kayak and to canoe and other things. South Suburban conducts course for this and it's a good recreational activity. In addition the applications asked for and the decree provides for 70 cfs flows in the summer months and 30 cfs flows in the winter months for the creation and enhancement of the fish habitat, below some of the boat chutes and that fish habitat come from the deepening of pools. The water that is controlled does that. And I bring that up because we have been focusing on the fact a little bit in this discussion that, will as an example one kayaker result in a call being made or not. I would submit to that an application or decree that allowed the control of water for the creation of a fish habitat or for fish ladders or that kind of thing. Might be something that could be basically callable all the time from the standpoint of enforcing its rights. I any event, for a number of years Littleton negotiated with opposers in this case that included Denver, The CWCB, Centennial and others to arrive at a decree that we have. We paired the decree down significantly from what was originally asked for. We have in the application rock clusters, boulder clusters to control the habitat for fish and that kind of thing and nine I think boat chutes. The purpose of the negotiations was to try to get this decree to mimic or to match as close as possible what was allowed in the Fort Collins /Thorton Case and to not have it go any further then that case. And I thipk largely we were successful in doing that. So that was I guess our experience and I have a few observations I guess after all this has gone through. I am an old water lawyer and I have mixed emotions about these instream flow rights. And Paul Zilis hit it on the head. They can be used as Littleton I thin did as a shield to protect a significant investment from future exchanges. But they can also be used as a sword. And the example in your memo is a great one. The city of Las Vegas creating something at the border. And I think you can see other examples where someone who wanted to control the river could at a fairly reasonable investment create one these courses and under Colorado water law have an ability to basically become the Czar on that river. My recollection too, we talked about the fact that control in the river is not an instream flow right but it is a diversion. And Glenn is right that is under the existing definition of diversion in the law. But that, the insertion of the control within the river aspects as being part of the diversion definition. Is on:, that is fairly recent in my recollection. And well they have been water rights such as mill rights and power rights before, those are recognizable not considered I think as diversions. That was a water right for for, that existed because of flows in the river. I don't want to run out of time, I uh, I guess I think some way needs to be found to accomplish some purposes. It seems silly to me to have municipalities invest a lot money for amenities because with a river that goes through their borders and then having that somehow being a position where they can never rely upon the water, it can all be taken away. And vet we can't make things easy that these kind of water rights can be taken without some real test as to their necessity and their reasonableness. And that may frankly take some legislation that you all may have to wrestle with. When I was a kid in my hometown we used to go the YMCA in my hometown and we had these movies and one of them was Buck Rogers I think he was kind of a space man. And I will never forget and there was some kind of serum to save some populous or help grow air or some other great beneficial purpose. And Buck was extolling the virtues of this, but then he said but if it falls into the wrong hands and I guess the concern we have is that these kinds rights I think and this capability can fall into the wrong hands from the standpoint of the benefit of the people of Colorado. . Bob Burr I would like to ask a question. When you were talking: about recreational flows Doesn't rafting also fall under recreational flows, and fishing also fall under recreational flows. Seems like say what's recreational and what's not? 17