PUB00093 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

They dance down the rapids. slaloming rocks, dodging downed trees, surfing waves and flirting \vith riffles. Every year, more and more bright plastic kayaks dot the waters of Colorado's rivers. The adrenaline, athleticism, speed and opportunity to play in the water on a summer afternoon creates ne\v addicts each year. Increased Interest in RICDs In response to this fairly new use of Colorado's rivers, cities all over the state have been filing for water rights to be assured water will remain in our streams to protect this use, also known as Recreational In-Channel Di\'crsions (RICDs). Although this issue has little to do with watershed groups that are mostly focused on protecting and restoring the ecological integrity of our rivers, there is a raging controversy surrounding RlCDs. The contlict arises from the clash of the parochial "Old West," which believes thc only beneficial use of water is when it is diverted and consumed, and the "New \Vest," which believes in environmental protection and developing and protecting recreational uses of water for fishing. boating, ratiing and kayaking. Instream Flow Protection It is fairly common knowledge that instream flow protection in Colorado was created in 1973 to "balance the activities of 'humankind' with the need to protect the 0; c w _u o ~ ,,0 m 0 W" ,," 50 u ~ .9~ o 0 ~ 0 n.cn Mike Bader braves the Widow Maker on Boulder Creek " :\('T-, --'- - . .. ---- environment to a reasonable degree:' Appropriating water to keep it in streams was assigned, by the legislature, to the Colorado \Vatcr Consen"ation Board which maintains exclusivc authority to hold instream flow water rights. The concept of "controlling" water in a strcam instead of divcrting it was first developed by Fort Collins in 1986 \vhen it built a boat chute (submerged structures) to create features (waves) for kayakers. The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed that their beneficial use of water of a modest 50 cfs did. in fact, control the watcr without divcrting out of the Poudre River. After the Fort Collins case. Littleton. Golden. Breckenridgc and Aspen requested water rights to flow through boating courses they hoped to construct. Golden Example of Conflict Golden claimed flows of up to 1.000 cfs in Clear Creek from Mav to July in their 1998 application. Gold~n's application for such a large amount of water raised the hackles of water managers. who claimed that granting that right would preclude future development or exchanges upstream. They claimed that smalllllunicipalities upstream of these large recreational uses may find themselves unable to grow or change watcr to new uses in the future. Such large recreational rights can become "czars on a stretch of stream." said Colorado River District The confiict over RICDs reflects the current struggle in Colorado between a consumptive and nonconsumptive culture. .w~ate lS h e.d~n e~w_s Board Director Tom Sharp. \\'ater Court awarded Golden the right to use 1.000 cfs in a decision acknowledging the growing importancc of recreational water use and the effect it has on the economy. Political Response In response to the Golden case and the growth of rccreational water use in Colorado, the Colorado General Assembly amended the Colorado \Vater Right Determination and Administration Act of 1969 with Senate Bill 216. which went into effect June 5.2001. The bill re,'ised the definition of "beneficial use" required for a right to include ,.the diversion of water by (various local government entities) for recreational in-channel diversion purposes." The bill also added the rather vague detinition of "recreational in-channel diversion" as "the minimum stream flow as it is diverted. captured. controlled and placed to beneficial use for a reasonable recreation experience." What was "reasonablc" was left up to subjective interpretation. S8 216 also required that all applications for these water rights must be reviewcd by the Colorado \Vater Conservation Board. whose members would issue a recommendation before the application goes to \Vater Court. lbe Board mllst basc their recommendation on sevcral factors. including whcther or not the right \vould impair Colorado's ability to fully develop and place to "consumptive beneficial use its compact entitlements'" and whether it would promote "maximum utilization of water in the state:' These phrases point to the current struggle in Colorado between a consumptive and non- consumptive culture.