Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~1/2o/2001 ~~:o< <br /> <br />.;H::J.;:i.j\j"l-t::Il::H::J.L <br /> <br />Lj.L I \~ Ut" l;<WLUt..N <br />i <br /> <br />r'1-\\;ll:.. I!I~ <br /> <br /> <br />'\ <br /> <br />l\Ilr. Rod Kuharich <br />January 24, 2001 <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />....',', .~," -,a.. <br />. _;rr'(....,.~ <br /> <br />these settlements will fully protect all of the future wate:~ uses in the incorporated and <br />unincorporated areas of the County, Given these settleriients, just whose interests are-the <br />Conservation Board trying to protect, and what is the legal basis for protecting future, undefined <br />uses? If there is such a legal basis, it could also be usedjto defeat any instream flow filing. <br /> <br />i <br />Second, the Board has raised the emotional issue of compact entitlement. However, the <br />Golden water right is nonconsumptive, and all of the fl9wS diverted by this course are <br />immediately rediverted and beneficially used by the numerous municipal, industrial and <br />agricultural water users that divert from Clear Creek dO}Vllstream of the Golden course. This is a <br />spurious argument and Mr. Merriman admitted that the ;Soard has no proof that the Golden water <br />right would impact any compact entitlement. <br /> <br />i <br />Finally, the third issue raised by your staff is tha:t the amount claimed is unreasonable and <br />exceeds the "duty of water" for a recreation right. But ~gain, your staff has no current evidence. <br />It is just a new theory. Rather than talk with thedesign:~r of the Golden cour~'(Ga;:y..h"r:6)f1~S' <br />has built boating courses throughout the United States, jihe Conservation Board has hired two out <br />of stl1-te "experts" who have never seen the Golden cour~e, and have never designed or built a <br />single boating course. <br /> <br />r r 4'_ <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Instead of spending the public monies of both the Conservation Board and the City of <br />Golden on two weeks of depositions, three days oftriali and an inevitable appeal, we strongly <br />urge that you discuss this newest theory with Mr. Lacy.: If you do, you will find out that the <br />Golden course is analogous to a ski area. At the lower t10w levels, it works like a green or <br />beginner run. At mid-range flow levels, it has areas ~a:t work like both green and blue <br />(intermediate) runs. Finally, at the peak and higher flqv,vs up to 1000 cfs, the course has green, <br />blue and black diamond (advanced) sections. Just as a ~ki area needs aU three levels to provide <br />the broadest range of recreational experience, so too i~ iJhe case with Golden's course. It was not <br />the City's intent just to design and build a bunny slope,!it desired and built a course that would <br />be an enjoyable experience for aU ability levels. <br /> <br />Golden is prepared to fuUy litigate this matter jtq protect its claimed water right. <br />However, given the settlements with upstream water ~sl~rs, and the downstream use of water <br />utilized by the Golden course, we simply do not see \Yh~t purpose the Conservation Board's <br />continued opposition serves, '-'-'i.,."" ... <br /> <br />r "1',. <br /> <br />It has become abundantly clear to us from readi*g Mr. Merriman's deposition and the <br />various staff "white papers" that this is nothing but an effort to establish Conservation Board <br />control over diversions for recreation purposes. Accord,ingly, we urge your direct involvement in <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />fd6047 <br />