Recreation Water Rights - "The Inside Story"

Home Browse Search

Recreational In- Channel Diversions (RICDs) Glenn E. Porzak, Esq. thousands of dollars of taxpayer money on both sides, the State had yet to reduce a claimed RICD by a single cfs. IX. City of Steamboat Springs Boating Park — The First Trial After Gunnison The first RICD case tried after the Supreme Court's discussion and analysis of SB 216 in the Gunnison decision was the claim by the City of Steamboat Springs for its boating park on the Yampa River. The CWCB's vehement opposition to the Steamboat claim was unprecedented. The Yampa River flows through the heart of the City of Steamboat Springs, and is one of the last rivers in the State that has not been overappropriated. It is an extraordinary recreational and aesthetic amenity of tremendous importance to the City. The idea for a boating park on the Yampa emerged out of the combined interests of citizens, City staff, commercial outfitters, and downtown businesses, and was formalized within a broader Yampa River Management plan that the City had been pursuing to preserve and protect the river corridor. The City built two boating diversion structures, known as Charlie's Hole and D -Hole, in a reach of the river near the downtown area. In keeping with the image of its ski mountain, and the athletic heritage of a small town that counts more than 80 Olympians as its current or past residents, the City sought to build a facility that would draw boaters from around the state, the nation, and even internationally. It saw the boating park as an important attraction during the spring and summer months when there was no ski - related business. The concept was to build a facility that would attract the widest possible range of users with varying skill levels and boating interests. By the time of the RICD application, the two structures had already acquired a national reputation. Given the high flows of the Yampa River, Mr. Lacy designed the two Steamboat structures to operate at their optimal level at flows of over 1700 cfs. The City claimed a RICD right that began with modest flow claims in April, climbed to a maximum claim of 1700 cfs during a two -week period during the spring runoff, and then extended through the end of the summer with lesser amounts to preserve a tubing flow. After a high flow season, tubing on the Yampa is an extremely popular activity on the stretch of the river through the City. While the CWCB had clearly been a consistent and zealous opponent of all the previous RICD water rights, it pulled out all the stops in its opposition to the Steamboat claim. The CWCB's strategy was clear -- not only kill the Steamboat RICD, but at the same time make the litigation process as expensive as possible. The CWCB strategy was coordinated by the CWCB's "RICD Program Coordinator," who was a former Colorado Assistant Attorney General and implemented by CWCB staff members, and a team of three attorneys at the Attorney General's office that worked virtually full time on the case for an extended period. Work on the case began with preparations for the CWCB hearing on the five criteria required by SB 216. That hearing was held for two days in May 2004 before a packed house in a large conference room at the Steamboat Grand Hotel. After presentations by the City, the CWCB and many of the parties that filed statements of opposition to the claim, as well as extensive periods of public comment, the CLE INTERNATIONAL ■ PAGE K -24 0 COLORADO) WATER LAW