Laserfiche WebLink
Before I end with my prepared remarks, I would just like to set the record straight with <br />regard to some of the remarks made at the hearing on last Thursday. <br />1. There seems to be mistrust regarding the Colorado Water Conservation Board and <br />their intentions with regard to this bill. I believe those comments are incorrect <br />and misguided. We believe that this statewide agency, with appointments from <br />each of the State's water basins, has always been fair and tempered in their <br />remarks and deliberations. From our perspective, Senate Bill 216 merely levels <br />the playing field and provides a forum for smaller entities to present their case. <br />2. As to whether we would hire a water lawyer to represent our interests, the answer <br />is no not necessarily. While perhaps entities like Denver and Golden can afford <br />to have water lawyers, as I have indicated, smaller communities such as Clear <br />Creek County cannot afford those types of litigation expenses. With a hearing <br />before the CWCB we could participate by providing testimony without having to <br />bear all the costs associated with depositions, legal motions, and expert testimony. <br />Of course, any entity would prefer to hire a lawyer for a hearing before a Board, <br />but not every entity can afford those large costs. <br />3. Finally, I would like to set the record straight about the problems that the current <br />law allows. In the words of Golden the other day, they claim they are merely <br />trying to provide a recreational benefit by leaving water in the stream for their <br />course. I personally believe that the water will be there regardless of this filing <br />because of the downstream calls and the very limited development potential in the <br />upstream canyons of Clear Creek. But the water rights application was filed for <br />reasons altogether different than to protect recreational flows in Golden. In the <br />words of Golden's attorney at the October 30 Recreational instream flow <br />workshop, Glenn Porzak stated, and I quote: <br />People need to be aware that there is a lot more going with respect to <br />Clear Creek and the City of Golden. And bolden owns 6,000 acres.1that is <br />mountain watershed in Clear Creek Coun tytliat Clear_Cre Coun <br />down -zoned to no development.i As all as open sace nhat what this <br />f tjs really�aboutn I am sorry ladies. This is has nothing to do with <br />recreationa flow:f_Ua9$4 This is he straw dog as Paul ilis well knows. <br />We've offered all kinds of solutions to this problem to really protect their <br />future water requirements with using other resources that Golden has. <br />Golden has a large reservoir that's in Clear Creek County but it was in the <br />context of resolution over the 6,000 acres that the City of Golden owns in <br />Clear Creek County. Clear Creek County said no thank you very much we <br />are going to down -zone this to zero development and just basically take it <br />for free as open space. So there is all these kinds of other issues that are <br />out there for what's it worth. And that is the doggone truth as to what's <br />going on here. <br />And with a recreational flow filing for all the available flow of Clear Creek, Clear Creek <br />County, and every upstream water user for that matter, has no choice but to deal with <br />Golden on Golden's terms. That is the real danger with regard to these types of filings. <br />