Recreational Instream Flow Workshop Tanscription of Meeting Tape

Home Browse Search

a f 0 ! biggest so far. But its only one in whole series. I, just so you will know that this something. ...I actually talked the City of Denver out of doing this very same thing about four years ago. Because I didn't think it was right. Because of what it does to the exchange potential on the South Platte. I didn't think it was the away to go. I think that in fact, for, I don't even think instream flows for recreation are very good. If you need 1000 cfs for a three day boat race. You don't get an instream flow. If you are lucky you will schedule your race on a day when there water. But you are a lot better off working on a deal with somebody to release water down the river on the day that you have got your event. Glen Porzak You know you have to go up there and look at this course. I am saying that if this is used three days or anything like that. Patti Wells I didn't say that Glen Porzak This is the most popular facility in the City of Golden these days. Go up there and see the number of people and the economic redevelopment that this has fostered. Patti Wells I didn't say that Glen Porzak You have got to understand that. Er , Wilkinson Glen don't defend your case here. We are talking instream flows. We are not talking your water right. Glen I understand that but one of the fundamental issues is where are you and the CWCB's charter visits saying you take on issues like this. Eric Wilkinson — Maximization of the states water resources. Maximum beneficial uses of the states water resources. Am I correct? Patti Wells — Yes. And Balance. One of the problems one of the reasons that we have gotten concerned about recreational instream flows that look sort of like this because when we have to an instream flow, it has to we have to balance. We have to look other people's uses. That's what we have to do. You as an individual or anybody, as an individual applicant doesn't have to look at anybody else's point of view. Now it's true you have to negotiate out with people that are in your case I understand that. But this issue of how these flows fit in with everyone elses water use and xvith the future development of the state is of concern to us. You may get be able to bump us out of your case that doesn't mean that it's not a policy concern to us. And that's different than being in your case. I think this is a good workshop to have, obviously people have lots of different points of vie about it. But we are the users and were the instream flow people and this kind of crosses both our jurisdictions. So we should we have a right to be concerned and I don't think that it's fair to belittle our concern or the legitimacy of our concern. We don't know anything about what your battle is with Clear Creek. Its instream flows or recreational diversions are of concern to us and always have been. So get off that part of it. I think would be fair to us for people to recognize our legitimate , ;. �;.:;. ��,'; ::.w .� ° ;, c answer doesn't mean legislation is the answer but it does mean we have a right to be concerned. Mike Shimmin If I could I would like to answer the questions I asked. There is a more direct answer that you heard so far. Don Schwindt Is that still on I am trying to get back to that question" 37