Recreational Instream Flow Workshop Tanscription of Meeting Tape

Home Browse Search

obviously is which year you pick. And everyone other than this past year. We are all going boy this is great all these big water parks work great and all of a sudden this past year they are not. So it's the average, it's the low average, and it's the high and so there is that factor in there also. But most the time its been the flow is there and taking the average and picking that flow, and designing for it is the best we can do because there is rumors of all kinds of things but that is the best information and we do the best job we can do at that time. Thank you very much. Eric Wilkinson Now you get to eat lunch. Gary Lacy Oh right. Eric Wilkinson With that I think we will move onto our next agenda item "Municipal and local government perspective" and with that Paul, Do you want to go ahead? Paul Zilis I have been asked to just give a presentation on behalf Clear Creek County. I am a water lawyer for the county and I was asked to come speak on some of the issues Greg is raising regarding perspective of a small mountain county that's got future water use. And when there is a large recreational water rights that comes into being below that, that can really foreclose any ability to develop future water supplies for any other uses. Obviously, the Golden application focuses the issues, I think for our discussion today. Because it's for a 1000 cfs you know in the peak runoff months. And we're not here to address specifically the Golden application or to attack Golden but I think that focuses the issues well for a little county like Clear Creek that really won't have means in the future for water storage projects or for exchange potential if they have any hope of development up there. And the importance of this issue I think is reflected by the fact that so many officials from Clear Creek County elected to come to the :neeiing. And hopeful'y they will be able to provide comments during the public speaking portion. Really the issue that needs to addressed, I think, um in light of the Golden application is you know, how do we deal with applications when they file for the maximum floes' rates for these water uh recreation water rights. Um, you know the Fort Collins case that the Colorado Supreme Court addressed case was for 55 cfs. It was a relatively small right. It was really focused on the minimum flow necessary for the boat chutes and the features. The Littleton application is for 100 cfs 70 in summer and 30 in the winter I believe. Which again is a relatively small amount of water to make sure that as senior water rights or I am sorry as junior water rights are developed that there is still water flowing through the structures that Gary designs. The Golden application on the other hand is for virtually all remaining water in the river. So its really filing for the maximum amount of water for recreational uses. Um and from Clear Creek's perspective I mean terms and conditions have to included in these decrees or they really can preclude all upstream water use for other purposes. Um, and from Clear Creek's view point we think there is protection within existing law um, and we hope that those protections are included in any decree in this case. Because, if it's just decreed for the maximum amount of water in Clear Creek, its going to have a devastating impact on the counties upstream. I know that CVA'CB is also looking at potential future legislation. I will address that a little bit but really the slant of my talk is from the perspective of an upstream water user under existing law. Um, the existing law. the definition of beneficial use and the resultant case law I think, provide a lot of guidelines for how one of these water rights should be decreed. Beneficial use is defined as the use of that amount of water that is reasonable and appropriate under reasonably efficient practices to accomplish without waste the purpose for which the appropriation is lawfully made. And we know there is a lot Supreme Court cases that have derived from that definition, and it raises a lot of issues in these cases. For instance, as Gary was talking about the different benefits from different flows. When you look at an application for a minimum. um not for minimum, but for recreation water rights. You know if 75 cfs is enough in some months does that entitle the water user to a 100 cfs or 1000 cfs in other months. Um, again this really focuses I think on the difference between a filing for maximum recreational water rights versus minimal water r:_,hts. Um other issues arise. I mean 9