Recreation Water Rights - "The Inside Story"

Home Browse Search

Recreational In- Channel Diversions (RICDs) Glenn E. Porzak, Esq. As the Golden case progressed, other Colorado towns and cities explored the possibility of claiming water rights for their river improvements. They saw the opportunity to help diversify and strengthen their economies while providing an increasingly popular amenity for their citizens. After Golden, the next communities to commit to securing water rights for their whitewater parks were the mountain towns of Vail and Breckenridge. 39 A. The Vail Whitewater Park and Water Court Application (Water Division 5, Case No. OOCW259). Vail is a world famous ski destination that has increasingly sought ways to attract visitors year round. Among its many natural amenities is Gore Creek as it moves through the heart of the town. Vail's local boating community and its tourism board made a presentation to Vail's Town Council about the importance of kayaking to the state's economy and asked the Town to consider building a whitewater park. After further study, the Council voted to construct a whitewater park within the channel in the heart of Vail's Gore Creek Promenade pedestrian area. In its first summer of operation, the park hosted the Teva Whitewater Festival, which was broadcast nationwide on Fox Sports Net and brought thousands of visitors to Vail during the spring season. On December 26, 2000, the municipal water provider for Vail, the Eagle River Water & Sanitation District ( "District "), filed an application for absolute and conditional water rights for the Town of Vail Whitewater Park. By Memorandum of Understanding dated November 16, 2000, the Town of Vail and the District had agreed to the manner in which the proposed whitewater park would be operated in relation to area municipal and snowmaking water rights, and the District agreed to adjudicate and own the water rights for the boating park. As beneficial uses, the District identified boating (including kayaking, rafting and canoeing), piscatorial, and general recreational uses. Objections were filed by the CWCB, the State and Division Engineers, the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, and the Homestake Project (Colorado Springs and Aurora). Trout Unlimited filed a supporting statement so that it would have standing to participate in the case. B. Town of Breckenridge Whitewater Park and Water Court Application (Water Division 5, Case No. OOCW281). Breckenridge existed originally as a mining town, but its modern economy is heavily based on skiing in the winter and tourism in the summer. Situated along the Blue River above Dillon Reservoir, Breckenridge has invested heavily in restoring and improving the river to clean up old mining wastes and restore a more natural channel with improved habitat for fish. In the process, it constructed trails along the river for hiking and biking. It saw the addition of a boating park as another way it could increase the value of the river to the community and attract additional visitors during the non -ski season. The idea for the boating park originated with the Town's Open Space Committee. The Breckenridge Town Council subsequently authorized construction of a park with fifteen structures that extend approximately 1,800 feet down the river. The structures were designed for optimal performance at flows of 500 cfs. 39 Aspen also filed a claim in 2000 for water rights for its new boating course. The decree, dated August 11, 2005, establishes an absolute right for 270 cfs in June, 350 cfs in July, and 33 cfs in August in the channel of the Roaring Fork in which the course was constructed. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, Judgment and Decree, Case No. 2000CW284, Water Division 5. CLE INTERNA T IONAL ■ PAGE K -17 ■ COLORADO WATER LAW