Recreational Instream Flow Workshop Tanscription of Meeting Tape

Home Browse Search

• Peggy Soapside — Director of Economic Development for Clear Creek County and certainly here with concern that I would view as irrational. And I would like to continue on to what Bob said. And that it that I represent all the counties including the municipalities not as an attorney but as somebody that works for the economic diversification of our community. And I would submit that those communities are not present in this application because they don't possess a premier water situations. I would submit that they are not here because of other reasons. It is a quality of life issue. I am in the job of trying to create a replacement economy for Henderson mine whether it be five years form now or twenty years from now. That's about 35% of our economy. Without the availability of water exchange opportunity or storage, Clear Creek can pretty much shut its doors. I am not just talking about commercial economic development I am talking about our future and our way of life. I am here to appeal to a test to this application. There has got to be a test. Not to the use of kayaking, not to a reasonable amount of water for that use. But for this specific application I ask for you to put your test forward for this application and help upstream communities like Clear Creek County. Thank you. Burt Weaver — I agree with all the public comment. I would be here concerned on behalf of Clear Creek County for any claim myself for maximum flow on the river. Any claim that would preclude or prev ,ent beneficial uses upstream. This past summer the municipalities of Georgetown, Empire and Sliverplume were all subjective to the administrative call. I believe that solutions to their problems will require a filing of junior storage rights. Clear Creek County echoing what Peggy just said is hoping to file junior storage rights for some of those and other economic development purposes. Clear Creek County as Bqb Poirrot has mentioned does administer non - tributary water rights but we also do have some water rights that are attached to other lands that we own. Including lands that have formerly been owned by the Bureau of Land Management. So Clear Creek County does have a significant interest in providing for the future of the entire unincorporated portion of Clear Creek County as well as those municipalities that are within Clear Creek County. And also echoing the other comments I feel that we are just and example of many headwaters small communities that have yet to face their largest growth pattern. Thank you very much. Mike Shimmon Some of you know that I am the one that litigated the Fort Collins case. In the years that led up to the Supreme Court's decision I suffered more verbal abuse than you can possibly imagine from the likes of David Robbins and Greg Hobbs about how the theon• of law that I was advocating in that case would ruin the structure of Colorado water law. Well I am proud to say that when we were in the Supreme Court Greg Hobbs stood up after me and said that he supported the entry of the decree for the City of Fort Collins. And I think it is important to keep this in historical perspective. One thing that I want to say is that when I read the thought piece that was on the internet site. The first thought that came to my mind was that I was absolutely shocked to read a piece put out by the CWCB that seemed to represent what I will just refer to large scale confusion about the Iine of distinction between an instream flow water right and an in channel appropriation. Now the term in channel appropriation is one I coined after the Supreme Court case. Because I think it's important to be able to draw a conceptual distinction between and instream flow water right and a private appropriation. Base on control of water within the channel. And so that's the term I came up with. The memo that was put out doesn't seem to recognize that distinction. Probably more than any other reasons that is the reason that I came here today. To make sure the board understands that as you engage in this discussion you need to draw a careful line of distinction in your terminology. That is not drawn in this piece. And it better be drawn before we go too much further. Eric Kuhn alluded to it a little bit earlier on. But the term that's coined in this piece called recreational instream flow water right. There is no such thing under current law. And I hope that the board keeps that clearly in mind. There is no such thing. Part of the debate under this issue is should we create such a thing. And I understand that is a legitimate public policy issue to debate. But lets get is out there and clearly define it and call it what it is. Lets not make some assumption about existing law that's just flat wrong as a starting point. Now par to what brims us here is pending applications for in channel 28