BOARD01483 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Colorado Water Conservation Board' r ,< ""., July 17, 2000 Page 2 CWCB is preparing to settle its opposition to Littleton's application. The fact of tllese .. settlements shows that recreational water rights can and do co-exist with the CWCB instream flow program. With respect to Golden's application, the Board ratified its Statement of Opposition at its March, 1999 meeting for the stated purpose of limiting Golden's claims to the law of the Fort Collins case. The staff memo reiterates that this is the primary concern. The large flow rate claim has caused fear that Golden could eliminate future exchange potential on Clear Creek.. There are related issues about the extent to which Golden can place 1000 cfs to beneficial use without waste. The appropriate way to address those issues is in the pending water court case on that application, not by taking action to restrict future legitimate applications for recreational flows. The memo also states that one problem with recreational instream flow rights is that they "hinder water development by limiting exchange potential." The same argument could be made about the 8000 miles of CWCB instream flow rights, and in fact about any new water right. Present water development limits future water development. That is the nature of the prior appropriation system. If the real concern is with Clear Creek and the large claim by Golden, it should be addressed in the context of that case. The memo states that there is some urgency with the current state of the law, that the CWCB should act now because "private developers, anti-development organizations, or other entities" might claim recreational instream flows and thereby "wreak havoc" with Colorado's water administration system and prevent future water development potential in Colorado. One example described by staff is a "world class kayak course in Fruita." None of these crises has . come to pass. The Fort Collins case was decided in 1992. Eight years later, the state's water administration system is intact, and the only recreational instream flow applications which have been filed are those described in the memo. With regard to the Fruita example, if export of water out-of-state is the concern, that specific issue should be the target, not recreational flows in general. Staff agree that recreational flows should be "encouraged and promoted," and they add that such water development should be "reasonable and responsible." But staff have not identified any existing recreational instream flow appropriations which are not reasonable and responsible, with the possible exception of Golden's claims. Those claims can be and should be handled in the context of the Golden case. Therefore, the alternative strategies suggested by staff are attempts to deal with problems which have not yet come into existence, and they do not result in reasonable and responsible development of recreational water rights. For example, alternatives 2.A. and 2.B. both recommend changes to statutes to prevent appropriations using boat chutes, fish ladders, and other structures and devices. There would be no water development for instream recreation under these alternatives, and staff admits this. Alternatives 2.C. and 2.D. both expand the responsibilities of the Board and staff into the area of recreational flows, which seems unworkable given that Board resources are already stretched to the limit with the current work load. There is no indication that cities need or want Board help in this area. Furthermore, the Board can deal with unreasonable or invalid .