WSP04603

• File Number: 8145
• Description: Arkansas River-Arkansas River Basin Water Projects-Upper Arkansas Headwaters[aka Ark R. State Park]
• State: CO
• Basin: Arkansas
• Water Division: 2
• Date: 12/7/1987
• Author: RF Kuharich
• Title: Memo to Colorado Water Congress on Arkansas River State Park Project
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Board Memo

.

.

,
".... .'
\J""~

~lEHO

TO:

Colorado Water Congress) State Affai rs Commi.ttee

(. r; # [j r; ~~J
DEe ' ('/
, '11887

FROB:

R. F. Kuharich

eeL:

.J:

,
,

The Colorado Division of Parks and Olltdoor Recreation (DPOR) is proposing to
leasE.' from th€ Bureau of Land Management (BLN) those thrcau lands along the
Arkansas River from Pueblo Reservoir to Leadville in order to create a state
park. This state park will have 35 its major focus enhancement and management
of the recreational opportunities on the river. Tllese are primorily rafting,
kayaking and fishing;. The effort to create this state park began in Narch of
this year and fiLM anticipates entering into a Recreation and Public Purpose
Lease with thE:: Di.vision of ParJ<s arad Outdoor Recreation in January, 1988. All
local governments (counties and municipalities) along the Upper Arkansas were
contacted by BLM and have been involved in the planning process. Water interests
have been relegated a back seat in this process. The development of a park on
the Arkansas River appears to be in keeping with Govetnor Romer's plan for a
competitive Colorado.

This proposed plan is fraught with problems for water interests. According to
the Bureau of Land Management, existing right-af-ways and easements for intake
and discharge structures~ pipeline crossings, etc. would be grandfathered in.
However, any futllrc water related activities on the river wouLd have to meet
with both the BI~ and DPOR requirements and approval, should future projects
involve impacts to any of these leased lands. The proposed lease BLM will enter
into ~ould allow the DPDR to eventually patent this land and own it in fee simple.
Since the DPOR would be mdnaging these land3 for water related recreational
activities, it is reasonable to ~SS\Jme that mitigation for any future water
development. On the Arkansas wOllld involve an atL:empt to extract. flow releases as
part of that mitigation. Any reservoir proposals for the mainste~ of tile Arkansas
in this stretch of river wOllld face ne~r insurmountable obstacles.

If the Division of Parks and Outdoor Recre3ti.on Qffect8 such a transfer of lands
and the creation of a st~te park unchecked, tile adverse impacts wOlJld be felt
throughollt the state. HLM currently has COTlsiderabl.c land 110ldings on the Upper
and Lower Colorado, the Gllnnison River, the North Fork of the Gunnison, the
Little Snake, Green, White, Dolores, Eagl~, Uncompaghre and Roaring Fork Rivers.

It is my opinion that a major impedimeTlt to water development in Colorado is
evolving ullder the guise of the creation of a state park. Creating state parks,
which is also a~sociated with economic devclopmenr, will be very difficult to
object to. It is my recOlTUnendation thar. the water interests support the creation
of state parks for water related recreation with necessary statutory safeguards
to protect existing water llsers and allo~ for future development of the state's
water.

Should the Water Congress support this r~commendation, time is of the essence.
The Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation will be coming to the Legislature
for appropriations to manage and develop this state park on the Arkansas River.
Whether or not i.t takes the form of a separate bill is unknown at this time. Hy
recommendat.ion would be to form a sub-conuni.ttee of the State Affairs Conunittee
to fo~mulate legislation safeguarding existing and future water interests, as
stdte parks for water recreation devclo~p, and to find a sponsor for such legislation.