|
,2 J r-r
<br />lA- <_ A. ✓% U 0 I
<br />CC (',', Qc
<br />-e a o- 2 2
<br />Fort Lewis College. The purpose of the
<br />prior to any construction," she said. "The
<br />2002, Since then, several municipalities
<br />meeting is to consider the city's recent,
<br />RICDs will protect the city's investment in
<br />have acquired the rights, including
<br />application for recreational in- channel
<br />the Durango Boang Park and provide a
<br />Gunnison, Steamboat. Springs and Golden,
<br />diversionrights,.gr RICDs.
<br />reliable source of water for recreational use
<br />but not before rejection from the state
<br />"We have to show beneficial use - in a
<br />in the mature" -` -" -- "- --"-
<br />Water board and legal battles in state wafter
<br />nutshell that's the baseline for Colorado
<br />However, several groups and individuals
<br />' court. Last spring, the Colorado Legislature
<br />.water law, ".said Durango Director of Parks
<br />have come out against all or part of the
<br />passed another bill, co- sponsored by Sen.
<br />and Recreation Cathy Metz, who will be
<br />idea, .including La Plata County, the
<br />Jim Isgar, D- Hesperus, meant to rein in the
<br />one of several presenters talking on behalf
<br />Southwest Water Conservation District and
<br />amount of water municipalities could
<br />of the city.
<br />Animas Valley Ditch Owners. Chief among
<br />request and further restricting parameters
<br />Once testimony - both pro and con - is
<br />the opposition's concerns is , that imple-
<br />of the water, rights. However, the city sub=
<br />heard, the board will recommend to the
<br />mentation of the in- stream water rights will
<br />mitted its request before the new law, thus
<br />Colorado Water Court whether or not to .
<br />deprive upstream users of future develop-
<br />making it subject tc i 'the prior rules, Metz
<br />approve the application. ' I I
<br />ment water and fail to satisfy the Colorado
<br />said, She.walso said the city is, prepared for
<br />The city submitted the application on
<br />River Compact, whereby water will flow,
<br />denial, viewing Monday's hearing as more
<br />Feb. 28 for between 185 and 1,400 cfs of in-
<br />unused, out of state.
<br />of one, tteo in the process.
<br />stream flow, depending on the season, for
<br />"Administration of the Durango RICD,
<br />'Don't be surprised if it's denied;» she
<br />the proposed Smelter Boating Park on the
<br />as proposed, would impair the ability of
<br />said: "Generally, the recommendation of
<br />River.
<br />develop
<br />conservation board is to deny
<br />l structures, or play features, over the
<br />control
<br />umptive beneficial use it co entitle-
<br />»
<br />such requests."
<br />course of about 1,200 feet. The u
<br />upgrades to
<br />menu wrote the conservation district in a
<br />From there the city will move to
<br />the park, which was the first of its kind in
<br />pre- hearing statement to the state water
<br />Colorado Water Court, where its case will
<br />the nation when built in the late -
<br />board. "' `'
<br />b6` tMM "'�� p1� +____?__ A unty
<br />would cost an estimated $500,000, with
<br />La Plata County also objects to the city's
<br />Courthouse by District Judge Gregory"
<br />work slated for 2009.
<br />application based upon concerns over the
<br />Lyme,: -Tie-heaY"tng is set for May of 2007.
<br />Metz said whitewater recreation is a
<br />. county's upstream constituents and its
<br />And although' the state water board has
<br />viable source.of income for the city, with 10
<br />future ability to develop water use for resi-
<br />already indicated a leaning toward denial
<br />commercial rafting and kayaking permits
<br />dents in the northern county.
<br />in a pre- hearing, statement; water court his-
<br />for the Animas River issued in 2005. The
<br />Any future water ' rights : applicants
<br />torically has had a different take, Metz
<br />RICDs are just a way for the city to ensure
<br />would be considered junior to the city and
<br />noted.
<br />that this revenue stream continues, as does
<br />thus subject to availability, depending on
<br />"In the past, the water board has recom-
<br />the river that supports it -
<br />flows.
<br />mended against RICDs but in every case,
<br />"While the City of Durango is prepared
<br />The idea of RICI?s is a somewhat new
<br />the judge has decided in favor of RICD
<br />to invest in these improvements, it is essen-
<br />and controversial one in Colorado, with,
<br />applications. That gives us an idea of what
<br />tial that the RICD water rights are secured
<br />the state legislature, approving them in
<br />we'll be up against." ■
<br />
|