PUB00056

• Year: 2001
• Title: Conference Proceedings: 26th Annual Gunnison Water Workshop
• CWCB Section: Administration
• Description: Theme of the conference was Who's in Charge?
• Publications - Doc Type: Other

. \
EP A is indicating thWthe federal agency will pull back from ambitious regulations to
try and force state ~ater quality agencies to implement a serious program for
improvement of degraded streams in favor of giving control over the program to the
states, who have aV9ided implementing the program for 20 years. The likely outcome
is that point source ~ischargers may have to improve their discharges in some areas
but that streams adv;ersely affected by polluted runoff or temperature and sediment
problems caused by fiiversions are unlikely to be fixed anytime soon.

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

Planning for Growth j
Colorado (unlike m~ny western states including neighboring Utah and Wyoming) has
no state water plan;ho water planning mechanism; no growth legislation. Result:
water flpwsuphill tq money, threatening rural communities and theJess populated
areas oft the state. .
State, and a few wa(er users, are pushing federal agencies to clearcut forests, with all
the inhljrent environ(nental damage that goes with such "management," to increase
water yield, even thOugh there is no .evidence that the water would be available
,
downstream, .
Money for Water.
CWCB: Gots to subsidize additional depletions. None to buy flows for clean
water, stream. recreation or the environment.
GOCO: D~ abandoned grant application to assess ISF needs, prioritization
and strategie!>
Emphasis on Storag~ as primary solution to increased demand (Holsinger 7/9/0 I
testimon){ before Hduse Resource Committee). No mention of conservation or other
means.

Protecting Instream Vallies
State promotesexclysive reliance on instream flow program
Programjlimited to junior rights for minimum flows to protect natural
environnjent which, by practice, has been limited to trout streams.
Programiwithout sufficient funding for enforcement of rights in the field
No state water trustfwater administration act does not allow water c uft to consider
environmental impa<jts in making water allocation decisions
Exclusive rightfors{ate to protect environment - np privateinstream flows; therefore,
wea~ market for ins1ream flows

Recreational Values
State le~islature this yea( removed the ability of municipalities and individuals to obtain
recreational water right~:without state agency (CWCB) approval. The CWCB is on
record as opposing thes, flows in the two cases that have been litigated to date. No other
water ripht faces this requirement; thus, the state has made these rights, which protect or
enhanc~ flows in econotically valuable recreational use areas, second class rights.

Next Ouestion: Why is~his so?