Water Embroglio Affects Breckenridge and Beyond

Home Browse Search

• 0 Water embroglio affects Breckenridge and beyond: Randy Wyrick Vail Daily Staff Writer VAIL A hard -line stance by a state water agency could jeop- ardize the stream flows for white- water parks- and more. A motion filed by the Col- orado Water Conservation Board (CWBC) asks the state Water Court to deny a Vail application for water rights necessary to keep the water flowing through white- water parks in Vail and Brecken- ridge. The motion comes on the heels of CWBC's failed effort in the state legislature to usurp the Water Court's authority in recre- ational water rights issues. "Having failed in their effort to outlaw this in the state legisla- ture, they. will do everything in their power to, stop this," said Glenn, Porzak, a -water attorney representing the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District. The district applied for an additional 350 cubic feet per sec - ond to keep plenty of water flow- i through the Vail whitewater park, located in Gore Creek in Vail Village. They intend to take these cases all the way to the Col- orado Supreme Court;' said Porzak. The trial will deal with recre- ational water rights for both Vail and Breckenridge. The date is set for early next year. . "The Breck and Vail trials are set simultaneously because they have many common witnesses," said Porzak. "The state even tried to block that. They wanted to make the cost to the towns as large as possible." The potential impacts go far beyond water flows in Vail's and Breckenridge's whitewater parks. Because Western Slope water flows west, and not toward the Front Range, the more recre- ational water rights are granted to High Country users for things like recreation, the less water is available for transmountain diversions to Front Range cities. Taylor Hawes of the North- west Colorado Council of Gov- ernments' Water Quality and Quantity Committee called the CWBC's efforts nothing more than another Front Range water grab. She said Front Range water providers are worried that any new recreational uses in headwa- ters counties will be senior to potential future transmountain diversions. In other words, it will keep the water in the rivers and heading downstream, instead of pumping it through pipelines and tunnels to the Front Range. Leading the stampede for more Western Slope water is board director Rod Kuharich, the former director of Colorado Springs' public works and water departments. "His job is to get as much water as possible for the Front Range," Porzak said. For the third time, Kuharich again did not return phone calls to comment on this issue. Kuharich was appointed to his post by Gov. Bill Owens. "The CWCB does not think someone should be able to com- mand large flows for recreational uses, Porzak said. "It's based on their anti - recreation bias, which they have admitted publicly on several occasions." Porzak said no real water users are opposing Vail's appli- cation, only potential water . diverters including the CWCB, the state engineer, the city of Col- orado Springs and the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District — the state's largest transmountain water diverter. "None of them have any water rights in the area," Porzak said. The Eagle River Water and Sanitation District owns the water rights for the town of Vail, as well as the water rights Vail Resorts uses for snowmaking in the winter. District Director Den- nis Gelvin is concerned that if the state Water Court rules recre- ational water rights. are inferior to diversion rights, it could spell trouble for snowmaking. Water Court Senior Judge Thomas Osola, based in Glen- wood Springs, heard the Golden case, and will also hear the Vail case. Water Court appeals go straight to the Colorado Supreme Court.