Senate Bill Could Limit River Flow to State's Kayak Parks

Home Browse Search

page 16 Crested Butte News March 25, 2005 Sena bi could limit river -flow to statek ` s . ka a v � F ` , `We ye very concerned about p rovide even more specific direc =�� ti to the courts in granting water the precedent this sets" rights for kayak courses. In its lat- est incarnation,, the bill calls for b Kristina Johnson water courts to grant recreational flows of 350 cfs or the his - A controversial -bill that would toric average daily flow on the - regulate river flows for kayak river, whichever is less., courses such as the - Gunnison . The bill has also been amend- ed to count natural features on the Whitewater Park is one step away from becoming law. river, such as. those in the Gunni- On Wednesday,. March 23, son- Whitewater Park, as the "con - Senate Bill 62 passed out of the trol structures" required for a - House Committee on Agriculture, . recreational water right. Livestock and Natural Resources Although the : Gunnison F by an 8 -2 vote. It is now on its way for Whitewater Park's recreational rights would be grandfathered in, amounts of water. We don't want The 350 cfs cap called for in to the House floor a vote. If it passes in its current form, and therefore not directly affected the legislature to determine what's Senate Bill 62 could seriously diminish recreational experiences Senate Bill 62 would limit the of water for recre - by the bill, the Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District waste." _ Rather, Shirley argues, the in state Whitewater parks similar amount granted ational river courses to ` a maxi - (UGIZWCD) board still opposes it, applicant for a water right should to Gunnison's, Shirley explains. be allowed to request the flows it House Agriculture Committee I l i um flow of '350 cubic feet per. number local according to UGRWCD manager Karen Shirley. believes it needs. Those opposing-- - second (cfs) -a boaters and water planners say is "We're very concerned about the request would then have a far too low. the precedent this sets for other chance to argue before the water The bill could also have larger implications for the state. For . the water users, Shirley says. If the bill were to pass, she court that a lower flow be granted. In its decision last week, the first time, the legislature would explains, it would represent the first the legislature would Supreme Court agreed that in the case of the Gunnison Whitewater have the power to decide how much water different users —from time have the authority to determine Park, the applicant should have boaters to irrigators -need. Tradi- courts what kind of water flows are nec- essary for different uses through- been the one to- determine how much water it needs fora reason - tionally, Colorado water have -made these decisions on a out the state. able recreation experience. The UGRWCD originally case -by -case basis: The vote follows on the heels This is problematic, Shirley explains, because the water needs requested summer . water flows of 'a of a Colorado Supreme Court deer of users differ dramatically from between 1,100 and 1,500 cfs, it had determined neces- sion last week in the Gunnison, Whitewater Park case, which has basin to basin and river to river. "For irrigation practices, [the number sary to provide a good recreational served as the first test of a law amount of water necessary is] tai- experience for both beginner and - passed in 2001 allowing whitewa - lored to the crop, the geographic area, and the type of irrigation expert boaters. One cfs is roughly the equiva- ter parks to apply for recreational water rights. practice," she says. "These differ- lent of 646,300 gallons " of water Senate Bill 62 is an attempt to ent practices require different flow per, day. chair and local representative Kathleen Curry had to recumoher- self from voting on the bill Mon- day, since she was involved in the Gunnison park case in her former role as manager of the UGRWCD.