My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Re: Agenda Item 9, Recreational Instream Flows, Policy Discussion
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
3001-4000
>
Re: Agenda Item 9, Recreational Instream Flows, Policy Discussion
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/14/2010 1:08:37 PM
Creation date
6/14/2010 10:51:00 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
Description
SB 01-26
State
CO
Date
7/17/2000
Author
Dan McAuliffe, Dan Merriman, Ted Kowalski
Title
Re: Agenda Item 9, Recreational Instream Flows, Policy Discussion
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Board Memo
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Further recognizing the need to correlate the activities of <br />mankind with some reasonable preservation of recreational <br />flows, the CWCB is hereby vested with the exclusive authority <br />to appropriate, protect, and enforce, in a manner consistent with <br />sections 5 and 6 of article XVI of the state constitution, such <br />waters of natural streams as the board determines may be required <br />for recreational flows to preserve recreational opportunities to a <br />reasonable degree. <br />This approach could require the CWCB to explore recreational instream <br />flow appropriations on its own accord, or it could require the CWCB to act <br />only when a governmental entity requests the CWCB to appropriate such a <br />recreational instream flow. <br />D. Require the CWCB to be a co- applicant. This alternative would <br />require a legislative change similar to the alternative stated in paragraph <br />2.C. In addition, however, the General Assembly could require that the <br />CWCB be a co- applicant for any appropriation for a recreational instream <br />flow. If the General Assembly took such an approach, then it would need <br />to spell out a specific role for the CWCB to take in such appropriations. <br />References, available upon request (copies are attached for Board members) <br />Whitewater Wonders, Jason Blevins, The Denver Post, Business Section, E1, May 29, <br />2000. <br />Proposed decree of Littleton, Case No. 1- 94CW273 <br />Proposed decree of Golden, Case No. 1- 98CW448 <br />City of Thornton By and Through Utilities Bd. v. City of Fort Collins, 830 P.2d 915 <br />(Colo. 1992). <br />June 7, 2000 Letter to Greg Walcher from Ed Rapp, Engineer for Clear Creek County <br />July 12, 2000 Letter to Greg Walcher from the Clear Creek County Commissioners. <br />July 17, 2000 Letter to Dan McAuliffe from Kelly Custer of Trout Unlimited. <br />July 17, 2000 Email to Ted Kowalski from Cindy Covell. <br />Amy Beatie and James Fosnaught, "The City of Golden's Application for Surface Water <br />Rights: A Kayak Course, Instream Flow, Dilution, or What ?" Water Law Review, <br />Vol. 2, Issue 2, pp. 273 -283. <br />List of Municipalities in Colorado where boat chutes exist or are being designed. <br />Boulder (This course is supported donated water <br />Denver <br />rights, and Boulder has no intention on filing for <br />Durango <br />a recreational instream flow) <br />Fort Collins <br />Golden <br />Grand Junction <br />Gunnison <br />Littleton (South Suburban) <br />Littleton (Union Avenue) <br />Ouray <br />Pueblo <br />Salida <br />Steamboat Springs <br />Vail <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.