State Water Policy and Planning Board Appeals Water Use Decision

Home Browse Search

State Water Policy and Planning Board Appeals Water Use Decision Page 1 of 2 6017i News & Infonnation Release Date: 8 /3 /01 STATE WATER POLICY AND PLANNING BOARD APPEALS WATER USE DECISION On Monday, July 24 the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) voted unanimously to appeal a w. court decision to allow the City of Golden to use all the flow of Clear Creek for a kayak course. This acti follows a decision by a water court judge in Greeley in June to award the City of Golden as much as 100( cfs worth of water to operate a water park. The CWCB opposed the water right application because such a right would preclude all future developm upstream of the park and inhibit future water exchanges, and transfers. "The duty of this Board is to ensure the maximum utilization of water. Our data indicates that kayakers o every skill level can enjoy the water park with a 200 -cfs flow and that a 1000 -cfs flow can actually be dangerous. To obtain a water right one must show that the request for water is tied to use and that there be no waste of water. This decision ignores some fundamentals of water law," said CWCB Director Rod Kuharich. Water courts are not permitted to examine global water use issues when making water allocation decisior For that reason, the General Assembly gave the CWCB the responsibility of advising water courts about impact of future applications for water rights for kayak courses. Recreation is important to the state's economy, and for that reason, Colorado is now the only state in the union that statutorily recognizes that recreation is a beneficial use of water. The courts and the CWCB must now blend these water rights into evolving water rights system, making sure that the statutory criteria of the minimum amount of water necessary for a reasonable recreation experience is adhered to. "We feel that the water court decision raises more questions than it answers. Because other water courts be asked to make similar decisions in the future it is appropriate to seek Supreme Court guidance," said Kuharich. The issues the Supreme Court may be asked to address include: Should water courts determine when a request is too large and thus would result in `waste'? What factors should courts use to determine whether an applicant has `controlled' water and thus falls under the legal requirement that water be diverted to be put to beneficial use? Where does an entity's ability to use water in a stream channel end and the CWCB's exclusive authori to hold instream flow water rights begin? Resolve other ambiguities in the 1992 `Fort Collins' Supreme Court decision. "We are working hard to get out in front of this issue so future water rights applicants and other water co won't have to struggle the way we have. We are trying to fit these rights into our system," said Kuharich. The CWCB was created in 1937. It is responsible for flood protection, water supply protection, stream ar lake protection, water project planning and financing, state water policy, and other water resource responsibilities. The agency operates under the direction of a 15- member board. The Board is comprised representatives from eight major river basins and the City and County of Denver plus the Executive Dire( of the Department of Natural Resources, the Commissioner of Agriculture, the Colorado Attorney Gener; the State Engineer, the Division of Wildlife Director, and the CWCB Director. http: / /www.dnr.state.co.us /cdnr news /cwcb /200183114549.html 09/06/2001