Fight Over Flows - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Summit Daily News for Breckenridge, Keystone, Copper and Frisco Colorado - News r�i Fight over flows BY BOB BERWYN summit daily news February 26, 2006 SUMMIT COUNTY - The latest effort by state lawmakers to define recreational in- channel diversions (RICDs) may founder in the whitewater of Colorado politics, as recreational stakeholders in mountain communities tangle with traditional water users, including Front Range cities, as well as ranchers and farmers. At issue is the ability of towns to claim river flows for kayak play areas. Existing state law includes provisions for such facilities, but in a case involving a whitewater park in Gunnison, the Colorado Supreme Court said the rules are still a bit murky. Page 1 of 2 Browse and Buy Summit Daily Photos A kayaker paddles through a man -made rapid May 23, 2005 in the Breckenridge Kayak Park. Summit Daily File Photo /Kristin Skvorc So for now, many of the claims for recreational flows end up in court. Coming up with a legislative solution could give everyone some sense of certainty as to how those flows are to be administered. In some cases, towns may end up spending more to defend their water right in court than on the actual construction of a whitewater park. Based on the Supreme Court ruling in the Gunnison case, the Legislature tried, but failed, to create a statutory definition for RICDs in its last session. This year's version has passed out of committee, but has yet to advance to the Senate floor. Currently, the various stakeholders are negotiating specific language in the bill that, according to critics, would establish kayak park stream flows as "second- class" water rights. That includes a "90- percent" provision, under which the recreational flow rights would only be valid if at least 90 percent of the claimed water is available in the stream," said Shanna Koenig, representing the Northwest Colorado Council of Government's Water Quantity and Quality committee in the negotiations. Other language limits the use of water solely to kayak parks, which presumably leaves out other types of recreational uses (angling, for example) that might otherwise be covered under the measure. "The only thing a new bill is going to do is create a second -class water right," Koenig said," explaining that many West Slope towns oppose the restrictive language. "We oppose having legislation altogether," she added, explaining that existing laws, court rulings and administrative measures provide an adequate framework for managing recreational water rights. At the same time, Koenig said the stakeholders she represents are negotiating in good faith to come up with an acceptable compromise. Summit County Commissioner Tom Long also has some issues with the current bill - and with recreational in- channel diversions in general. "Personally, I'm not fond of them (RICDs)," Long said. "You've got to understand them for what they are," he said, characterizing the recreational flows as a potential tool for controlling water use downstream. "But I've always supported them based on the interests of the community," he added, explaining that kayak parks http: / /www.summitdaily.com/ apps /Pbes.dll/ article ?AID= /20060226/NEWS/102260031 &te... 2/27/2006 Click to Enlarge