Recreational Instream Flow Workshop Tanscription of Meeting Tape

Home Browse Search

a 0 ( W Mike Shimmin The answer to your questions is anyone in the Sate of Colorado including the Water Conservation Board has standing to oppose any water right application that is filed. There are two different types of standing. I cal them category one and category two standing. Category one standing under the Turkey Canyon ranch decision by the Supreme Court is what anybody in the State of Colorado can do. Come in and put an applicant on strict proof for the elements of their case. Category two standing is actually asserting injury to a particular water right in order to do that you have to actually own a water right. O.K. so there are two lines of distinction there. What I would assert is the aboard has an appropriate and proper role to play in cases, in any case it chooses. To get into under category one standing to make sure the applicant is able to prove the elements of their case. And in the case of this type the elements include: the reasonableness of the amount, under reasonably efficient practices. It's right in the definition of beneficial use in the statue. And I think the board as well as any other person that walks or breaths in the State of Colorado has standing to file a statement of opposition and to play that role in water court case. Glen Porzak - I agree with everything Mike just said with one cabiod. Is that really the new role you want the Conservation board to play? Traditionally up to this point in time the Conservation Board has entered case in order rot protect its instream flow water rights. That is clearly not at issue in this case. And so, is that truly the way you want the Colorado Water Conservation Board to now basically be the self - anointed protector of the rivers throughout the state of Colorado. I could buy that a little bit more if it was the State Engineer although I will regret probably having said that. But I think traditionally the State Engineer has played that role. And they are seeking to intervene in this case. But I am not belittling this dialogue. Please don't get that uh take that from any of my comments. But I am trying to vigorously say, you are being asked to go up another significant step to basically be the self - anointed protector of the rivers in Colorado. Even though when it doesn't involve instream flows. And I don't think that the step that Colorado Water Conservation Board should take. I think you know if you are going to talk about state agencies doing that that probably should be the role of the state Engineer more than yours Mike Schimmond - OK I will rise to the debate. I just wanted to say let Glen know there is one issue I don't want to take issue with either side. But I think the Water Conservation Board should be involved where there are state policy issues like compacts. Recovery programs, you know whatever, there are clearer compelling state issues that go beyond just instream flows and they don't apply to all water rights for sure. Glen Porzak then remember my testimony where I said what's the difference between this and a hydropower right, a large agricultural diversion or a large municipal diversion and where do you draw the line? Why are you singling out a recreational diversion? Steve Simms I will tell you. I can see Dan and Ted are about ready to burst so I figured I would do it. LJh there is an actually very distinct reason why we have the Water Conservation Board has filed a Statement of Opposition. In this case and the Littleton case and the Taylor court second fill case and the Fort Collins case. Which is from Fort Collins on, these smell a lot like instream flows and the board has always gotten into cases where other parties third parties have sought instream flow rights because as you know only the Colorado Water Conservation Board in entitled to hold such a right. So they always get into those cases to make sure they are not getting an instream flow right and from Fort Collins on theygot into the cases to make sure the Fort Collins case is not expanding. We have told you that before. And we told Bill Brown that before. The Board at Harold Miskel's first meeting in Castle Rock in March of 1999. I instructed the board staff to not get involved in this case. But if they determined that they were not going to beyond the Fort Collins case. And that what the board's instruction was and that's what staff has done. And they ware are still trying to determine with the board's input as to whether you are seeking an W.