BOARD01483 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

6 ... ). . . July 17, 2000 Colorado Water Conservation Board c/o Dan McAuliffe 1313 Sherman Street, Room 721 Denver, CO 80203 via Fax and Mail Re: Recreational [nstream flows CWCB members: Trout Unlimited has been provided with a copy of the draft staff memo dated July 13, 2000, on the subject of recreational instream flows. On behalf of TV, I offer the following comments: The staff memo fails to acknowledge the economic contribution of instream recreational development. One of the most important beneficial uses of water in Colorado is recreation. And it becomes more important with the arrival of every tourist and new resident in the state, who demand water not only for domestic and other consumptive uses, but for the outdoor recreation our state has become famous for. As an example, commercial river rafting for 1999 in Colorado totaled 526,897 user days (and an increase of 7.7% annually from 1996-1999), with direct expenditures of $46,950,626, and total economic impact of S120, 193,602. Recreation is a recognized beneficial use under state water law, as are fisheries and aesthetics, two other values associated with flowing streams. These uses came to be recognized because the people of the State demanded water rights for the uses they value and courts upheld those rights. In a very fundamental way, appropriation of water for instream uses U development of state water resources. The staff memo identifies several negative impacts which it says might result from recreational instream flows, and suggests some strategies for the Board to deal with these impacts. As a general matter, TU questions whether it is appropriate for the Board to seek to limit development of the state's water resources by limiting future appropriations for recreational uses. More specifically, several statements in the staff memo require responses. The main point of the memo seems to be that claims such as those by the cities of Fort Collins, Littleton, and Golden for recreational water rights threaten the state's water development and the CWCB's instream flow program. If that were true, the CWCB would fight the claims. However, the CWCB withdrew its opposition to the Fort Collins application after Fort Collins amended its claim to differentiate it from an instream flow right, and the