Laserfiche WebLink
t <br />• Are appropriate in the stream reach for the intended use; and, <br />• Protect existing instream resources and values. <br />Q: Should environmental groups, private parties and the federal government be able to obtain <br />these types of water rights? <br />A: Non -local government entities can obtain an in- channel diversion water right through their local <br />governing bodies. This limitation will help eliminate mischief, like seeking to limit exchanges, and ensure <br />the management of resources is done at the local level. <br />Q: Is this a back -door attempt to ban these types of rights? <br />A: No. The water court will remain the final arbiter of these water rights. In fact, the CWCB owns <br />two kayak courses. The best known course is below Chesman Dam and reservoir. The Board also assisted <br />Fort Collins and Littleton in their efforts to get these types of water rights. The key was that the water <br />rights were achieved through negotiation not litigation. In the long run, project funds can be made <br />available for the construction of approved recreational courses. <br />Q: Will it take longer to go through a CWCB process than the water court? <br />A: No. Currently court dates are being scheduled more than one -year in advance. Golden filed for its <br />rights in 1998 and the trial was not held until March 2001. It will take about one year to establish rules <br />and procedures, but once they are in place the board meets every other month. We also do not expect to be <br />overwhelmed by requests. Most entities that already have boating facilities rely on Mother Nature, not a <br />water right. <br />Q: `'ghat other entities may be considering in- channel diversions? <br />A: Boat chutes exist or are being considered in Boulder, Denver, Durango, Fort Collins, Golden, <br />Grand Junction, Gunnison, Littleton (South Suburban), Littleton (Union Avenue), Ouray, Pueblo, Salida, <br />Steamboat Springs, and Vail. <br />