Recreational Instream Flow Workshop Tanscription of Meeting Tape

Home Browse Search

• R usefully explored. I personally don't think we need legislation. To deal with the questions surrounding in channel appropriations. These are questions that can be litigated they can be answered. And that's the way we have always done it for all other appropriations. If you think an applicant has claimed too much water. Then if you can't resolve the issue you go to court put on your proof and let the judge decide how much is enough to meet the definition I n the statute. The tools are already in existing law to resolve the issues about in channel appropriations. On the other hand there are no tools anywhere to resolve any question dealing with recreational instream flow rights because there is no such thing. It does not exist. If its gonna exist its going to take legislation. And if you are going to create legislation on those issues, you are going to have a whole host of issues to answer as you right that legislation. But please keep those tow things separate; draw the line of distinction so we know what it is you are talking about. Steve Glazer — I want to express the fact that I share a number of concerns that Kelly raised about this process. I am hoping that this is beginning of an outreach effort that will reach throughout the state and not just have this discussion centered here in Denver. I am hoping that there are hearings at all the far reaching corners of the state with varied time schedules so that people that have to work during the day still have an opportunity to express there feelings to this board. I do think it's appropriate for this board to be considering some of the issues. But I also think that there are some issues that may be beyond the purview of this board or that don't need to be addressed by this board. I would like to take a moment to talk about a water right that hasn't had much discussion toady. It is very pertinent to the discussion. And that is the second fill of the Taylor reservoir that was awarded to the Upper Gunnison WCD back in 1991. That water right is for the purposes for piscatorial, wildlife, recreation and supplemental irrigation purpose. At first flush you would think that a lot of those sues are in conflict with each other but those joint uses of that water were first contemplated or affirmed in a contract that was negotiated between the BOR, the State of Colorado, DOW, the Colorado River District and Upper Gunnison WCD, the Uncompaghre Water Users. That contract was finalized in 1975. That was for the operation of the Taylor Reservoir to benefit the lower Taylor River and Upper Gunnison River. A stretch of over 35 miles. And there has been a mutual consensus position of how this water can be managed. How releases from that reservoir can be managed to benefit all of those purposes that I mentioned. So I don't know that we need new law to find resclution to these conf'icts. I think .hat the vyater court does provide op unities for negotiations through that would be consummated through stipulations. The SEO or the ision engineer does have a significant responsibility in those negotiations to make sure he is in a position to administer non - injury. And that brings me to one of the concerns that I haven't heard a great deal about today but is in the thought piece. And that's to be assured, we must be assured that the natural environment through the instream flow program is not injured by instream appropriations for recreational purposes there are a number of different types of recreation that can be in conflict with each other. There is boating, rafting, fishing, boating fishing, wading fishing. But we also need to be assured that endangered and native fish populations are also protected. There is potential for conflict with all of these purpose. I think there is opportunity to negotiate and stipulate to a reasonable protection of all multiple uses. The opinion piece does mention and Kelly re- iterated the idea of introducing public interest into consideration when water right applications are being made. High Country Citizens Alliance promoted that concept back in the Union Park trial in 1991. The Supreme Court suggested that they were not appropriate body to address that issue that we should seek redress of our concerns about that issue with either the legislature or the electorate. If this board is going to bring any legislation forward and I am not suggesting that that be done in this session. I think we have a long ways to go before legislation might be used to assist us in maintaining flexibility in Colorado water law. But if there were any suggested legislation brought I would suggest that a review of the public interest in water right applications would be a positive addition to the way Colorado water is administered. If I am not mistaken Colorado may be the only state in the nation where a public interest review does not occur. And I think that we need to realize that there may some wisdom to the way some of the other states deal with this issue. Concerning the issue of ownership I would remind you as a water right holder the Upper Gunnison \VCD does not itself put that water to 30