Laserfiche WebLink
3 <br />as is mentioned in the current and existing rules. The only judgment on the importance of uses <br />that we are aware of is in the hierarchy of uses, which for instance, puts drinking water ahead of <br />other uses in a time of shortage. It is not the purview of the Board to make recommendations to <br />the court based on presumed future needs. Such a determination in this case would seem to <br />encourage speculation on the part of others, which might result in ill- conceived appropriations on <br />the part of other appropriators. All appropriations have impacts on both existing and future uses. <br />The existing users' interests are protected through their seniority and their right to oppose new <br />rights. In every instance that I am aware of other basin interests have been satisfied prior to either <br />Board or judicial review of an RICD application. The Board should confine its interest in <br />"future probable uses" only in its relation to interstate compacts and maximum utilization. <br />In the last 150 years the evolution of water law and the institutions that support it have been <br />important to its continued effectiveness. The right to use water through appropriation is a <br />cornerstone of water law in the west. This concept grew out of a natural scarcity of water and the <br />desire to give access to this scarce resource to as many interests and individuals as possible in a <br />fair manner. This change was born out of the inability of the riparian system to serve a growing <br />population on an arid landscape. The people that created the appropriation doctrine looked ahead <br />and realized that historical legal frameworks would not meet their needs. The creation of the <br />institution of the Bureau of Reclamation and the support it gave to small farmers was an <br />outgrowth of the desire of our country to meet the needs of a broader range of people in a <br />growing nation. More recently the Instream Flow Program in Colorado expressed the desire of <br />the citizens of this state to protect some part of the natural systems and qualities of the lakes and <br />streams of the state realizing that these were important in a state where these things were more <br />scarce than they had been and more important to a broad range of people as we became more <br />dependent on tourism. The Recreational In Channel Diversion is simply one more adaptation that <br />reflects the changing needs of our citizens. It was created to recognize the importance of <br />recreation to our economy and the desires of a great many of our citizens. It is not unimportant in <br />relation to our other types of use, and it deserves the acceptance of the board in the spirit of its <br />creation as well as in the letter of the law. The representatives of the traditional consumptive <br />interests seem to minimize or forget these things in looking at this new use. All of us need to <br />recognize that the continued efficacy of the body of water law that has grown up in this state <br />relies on its ability to meet the needs of the existing population. We must stand firmly on our <br />experience and history. But we must look forward to our future with an eye not only to the <br />amounts of the resource that we have but also to the ways that we can apply it to variety of needs <br />that change as society changes. <br />In regard to the pre - hearing conference, Peter Butler will be acting as our representative. He will <br />not be able to attend in person, so we would appreciate it if he can attend by phone. His number <br />is 970- 259 -0986. He can be reached electronically at pbutter(@earthlink.net. <br />Sincerely, <br />Charles Wanner <br />San Juan Citizens Alliance on behalf of the West Slope Water Network <br />