Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />.,- <br /> <br />~j, <br /> <br />I. <br /> <br />In 1998, the City of Golden applied for a water right for up to 1000 c.f.s. on Clear <br />Creek for boating, piscatorial, and general recreational uses. This application describes a <br />rock deflector and seven dams that "control, concentrate and direct the stream flow:' The <br />design flowrate for the Golden course is 1000 c.f.s., but the appropriation is stepped to <br />match the historically measured flows on Clear Creek. The City of Golden also seeks <br />conditional water rights (for additional flows that had not yet been put to use when the <br />application had been filed and for an extension of the existing course which has not yet <br />been built). The CWCB and Golden are in negotiations, and the CWCB Staffs primary <br />concern is that Golden's decree should not expand the Fort Collins case. <br /> <br />Nevertheless, given the broad language in the Fort Collins case, the CWCB does <br />not have much room to negotiate an agreement that strikes a balance between the desire <br />for recreational instream flows and the needs for future water development in a given <br />watershed. In the Golden case, for example, the City of Golden may be able to prevent <br />any and all future exchanges of water up Clear Creek. The Golden and Littleton cases <br />are still pending, and the Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District has a water <br />rights application with a similar recreational instream flow aspect which the CWCB has <br />opposed. The CWCB expects similar applications to be filed in the near future. <br /> <br />Problems with the existing law <br />Since the filing of applications by Littleton and Golden, many water users and <br />interested observers have expressed concerns about these types of applications. These <br />types of applications could: 1) hinder water development by limiting exchange potential; <br />2) prevent Colorado from being able to use all of the water resources allocated under <br />existing compact entitlements; and 3) detract from the State's instream flow program by <br />essentially authorizing private instream flow water rights. <br /> <br />One does not need many examples to understand how the application of the Fort <br />Collins case to other situations could be detrimental to the collective interests of the <br />people of the State of Colorado. Just imagine a "world class" kayak course in Fruita, <br />Colorado.. ..designed and paid for by the City of Las Vegas. The impacts to the people of <br />the State of Colorado could be significant if the border towns of Colorado took full <br />advantage of the Fort Collins case law. <br /> <br />Also, there are potential impacts to water users in Colorado that have nothing to <br />do with other states and Colorado's compact entitlements. The possible effects on water <br />development within a river basin have been described as "potentially devastating." One <br />water user explained that Golden's application is a "water grab" that will allow Golden to <br />"dictate the terms of water development on Clear Creek, beyond its five mile watershed <br />protection limit." There are no built-in protections to allow exchanges to occur. Even if <br />an entity wanted to run an exchange through Golden's or Littleton's reach at night, these <br />entities could prevent the exchange from occurring. <br /> <br />While these characterizations may seem extreme, they are not far from the mark. <br />Both Golden's and Littleton's applications, once decreed, could be used to prevent <br />exchanges up Clear Creek or the South Platte River, respectively. At one extreme, one <br /> <br />3 <br />