Recreational Instream Flow Workshop Tanscription of Meeting Tape

Home Browse Search

beneficial use if does it for the sake of its public. The beneficiary of that second fill is the public. I caution about the idea that beneficiary must be the only one that can apply for instream appropriations for recreational purposes. I am looking forward to a more through discussion of some of the issues in the thought piece. I think there are many legitimate issues. I will also reiterate something that Glenn said earlier. Some of these issues are red herrings and are non - issues. David Perring — I with the paddlers up in the Fort Collins area. First thing I wold like to say not so much about the regulatory issues but about the rational for in channel appropriations or instream flows or whatever. We view that this legislation as being one way to balance out the presumption that consumptive use by people is the best the highest and the most preeminent use for any water in the river. I want to mention that even though the instream flow or the recreational right is very small. We have been working with a variety of environmental groups the City of Fort Collins and others on a potential paddling course and such in the Fort Collins area. But we framed it more in terms of enhancing the river bed environment and one of the things I want to point out is sometimes we talk about all the potential negative consequences of allocating a recreational right. There are also a lot of positive spin -offs to that. One of things we have been focusing on is keeping the instream intervention pretty minimal in order to and focusing on improving fish habitat using it for leverage in terms of river bank restorations and other kinds of positive spin offs. Some of the economic benefits that have been realized by the City of Golden and their course in a much low -key environment and our area can be seen and realized in other parts of the state. There are a variety of kayaking and canoeing courses around the state that are of various levels of intensity. And have had a variety of positive effects without major water allocations. The only other thing I wanted to say is let's look at the positive effects not only the potential negative effects. And beyond the narrow issue of whether it improves my life as a boater or any of my friends lives as boaters but also there are other people in the community recreationally and otherwise. Even though that is not the primary intent of this legislation or this court filing. Last thing I want to say is just that from a participation standpoint who simply could not come today because of conflicts with their work situation. I imagine those burdens are even larger for people on the west slope or other parts of the state that might be affected by your decisions. So I would also second that other venues in other parts of the state or at least in more convenient times or a variety of interests would be highly desirable. Jay Kinney — President of Colorado Whitewater Association and the American whitewater Affiliation. The two groups are connected. One of the affiliated members of the national organization. Together both groups represent 80,000 boaters across the country. I am one of the end users of these structures that you are talking about. And from my perspective as a boater these are phenomenal things. They not only are in places like Clear Creek in Golden. They are improving the riverbed and making some effort to restore it. But because there are flows associated with it there are opportunities to paddle where there weren't before. This really for me the first chance I have to get involved in this issue. And that is whether there should be some effort by the CWCB to get involved in a heavier way than it has on the issue. And there is nothing that I have heard so far that suggests that the present legal structure is not adequate of this new use. And it is a new use on the river. There is nothing I have heard so far that says that the present structure can't accommodate. I do hope you will give a nod to the S00 other paddlers couldn't be here because of timing. And people who are not paid to be involved in river issues. And make accommodations both in terms of the location of your meetings and the times of your meeting's so that these ultimate end users could be heard if their wishes could be factored into whatever decisions the CWCB makes. Dan Lueeke — Environmental Defense I think the discussion that preceded the public comments really reflects the changes that have occurred. A window if you will on the change in the structure and dynamics of Colorado's economy over the past several decades. And also a change in attitude for a long time I think we collectively or cities and towns collectively turned thcir backs on the rivers and streams 31