Recreational Instream Flow Workshop Tanscription of Meeting Tape

Home Browse Search

are going to see fairly intense recreational use. But does not fit the normal procedures and the type of protection that the state has afforded. And we are going to be interested in working with the state on that. So in a nutshell we haven't decided that were going to make these kinds of filings. We haven't decide what we are going to do as of yet. But we do see definitely the need for protection of recreational values and not just the structure, not just the type of recreation that uses structures. In terms of what we would like to see happen. We have a couple of preferences. One is that we'd like to see a diversity of parties be able to continue to file for these water rights. Because we work with a number of parties who are working with us and making investments in boat ramps, boat chutes, roads, others sorts of things that they think will help their recreational economy. And we want them to continue to feel that if needed they could file for a recreational water right that would help protect their investment. We don't think we are going to be able to meet the recreational demand by ourselves. We are going to need the partners which are the municipalities and the local government districts that are going help us to do this. Our preference would be that the CWCB staff not become involved in recreational instream flows. We think this subject is definitely a legitimate subject for discussion among the C' lVCB board but we already see a small staff that has a lot of work in front of it. Has a lot of questions that haven't been addressed. And this is going to put much larger workload upon them and I don't know if the state legislature is going to see fit to give additional appropriations to beef up the CWCB staff. And the reason that we say that is we have got a lot of streams on BLM land that we would like to see protected where we want to use new methodologies and already the staff is telling us slow down. We can't do that much work we have got a small funnel you have to go through. And what I don't want to see is that staff further diverted by other things that keep them away from the central mission, which we view as protecting the natural environment to a reasonable degree. So if you ask the state legislature for that authority, if that's the ultimate decision, be careful about it. Because we see the board staff as stretched pretty thin. Not much effort, you know, coming from the board; yet because of staff limitations on enforcement. And just issue after issue that they are not able to address. So we don't want to overwhelm the staff even further. We would like to see the board work on instream flow appropriations that protect the natural environment and protect recreation. We think that in most cases if you protect a range of flows that will protect natural environment you will also be protecting the flows that are needed for recreation. For example during this next year we are going to be bringing instream flow recommendations to the board on the San Miguel River. And over the next two or three years we ultimately plan to bring recommendations to the board that would cover the globally unique riparian community that we see along the San 'Miguel. If you protect the flows that protect that riparian community. That's going involve some higher peaking summertime flows. And those are the same exact flows that the rafters want to see in the river. So what we would rather see is a renewed effort by the CWCB to protect the natural environment and protect the range of flows that will help keep those systems functioning and protect recreation at the same time. And if we do that I think there's a whole host of administrative problems that we have already mentioned. With recreational diversions, recreational instream flow rights. And if you go ahead and divert that. If you protect that water for the natural environment and it protects recreation as well. I think we might be able to avoid some of those difficult administration issues. Finally if the board feels like its absolutely necessary to go to the state legislature and request a change in state 1aµ• to help limit to help form these kind of flows. We would just caution you to be very very careful about that. Because as Glenn Porzak said when you start limiting the ability to appropriate in one area, pretty soon it becomes easy for other interest groups to say lets limit this type of appropriation for another use. And in our mind it doesn't set a good precedent to start limiting the types of appropriations. It's a very slippery slope to go start going down. So my final message is that this is a good discussion to have but we would like to see the board stay focused on the natural environment. Because there is a lot of work to be done that has not been addressed yet. Any questions. EW Questions. Thank you very much. We have Melly Custer from Trout unlimited. 2 ;