Durango water rights

mania · 10-29-2005

http://www.durangoherald.com/asp-bin...ws051029_4.htm

DanOrion · 10-29-2005

Has anyone seen a copy of this bill or know the number? I didn't see it on legislature website.

From what I could decipher from that terribly written Herald piece is that RICD's would be treated differntly than all other water rights: For example, if you neighborhood WW park had a right for 500 cfs, and there was only 425 in the river, the park couldn't put a call on the river. This is total bullshit, and not the way Colorado water administration has worked historically.

What would really be murderous, would be if the bill was retroactive and affected existing RICD's.

In drought years, RICD's would be useless because there would almost certainly be less than 90% of the right in the river.

PARKER · 11-02-2005

Interesting but true that durango's "Park" does not qualify. Every year that thing gets messed w/ it seems to lose a bit. It really is just a back hoe operator moving things around at the whim of the local slalom coach. Last time they were in there they didn't even clean out the sediment in the service eddy. That would have been an improvment over the scape/ push/ pull that it is now.

That drop has huge potential if Dgo could unify the users and get a pro in there. Grouted/ permanent features would be nessary due to the river seeing 300 to 8000cfs. As is, what ever is done stands a huge chance of being blown out at peak, as has happened but was probably for the better in that the features needed to be fixed anyway.

I do hope something happens w/ RICD and all the parks that are in the works around the state.

kentv · 11-02-2005

You can find some information regarding the new RICD legislation at the CWCB website: http://cwcb.state.co.us/isf/Programs/RICD_main.htm

Some questions I have about this new piece are:

- Will these new rules retroactivly impact existing RICD's?

- Will future junior rights to a RICD get to utilize remaining water if flows are below the 90% for a downstream RICD?

- Where do the required depth (3.3 ft) and length (790 ft) of a RICD's start and end?

- Structors will have to have full build out prior to any RICD application filing?

- Will RICD's always be viewed upon as a secondary water right?

sward · 11-03-2005

I am with Parker on this one.

The park needs dredging and concrete. Enough about messing up some natural environment, that was lost with the mining tailings.

Preserve the recreation for everyone, if the community can communicate with the river via access, they will come and enjoy it.

It needs permanent fixtures that don't blow out in high water. It needs a professional like Lacey who calculates his designs. Not just stating that we need square rocks and a larger excavator.

A site like golden's in Durango would be huge.

Sorry this became OT.

Steve.

brendodendo · 11-03-2005

That would be a big improvment for DGO. Back in the day, we would rearrange the rocks in the V-wave using brute muscle, chains and a toyota. We knew this would only last until high water. Seems to me that with ALP, DGO needs to get water rights guarenteed.

We need more WW parks and would do good looking at how the Skateboard parks have proliferated all over Colorado. Just Like Skate Parks, We need to be wary of design and build issues so that some constuction dork dosen't end up making big mistakes like the Skate Park in Denver. Stupid and dangerous.

keel · 11-04-2005

First and foremost Smelter rapid has only been manipulated 6 times in 22 years now. It is done every time with an engineer and a group of people that all agree on what maintenance can be done, and what the Army Core will permit, (another engineer stamp) it is not on a "whim". Last maintenance was only for bank stableization. Till now the Army Core and the city will not permit the use of concrete and even with concrete in Smelter there is no "guarantee" that there would be a great feature and hold. Very high flows, steep and on a turn is difficult to get anything to stay put and on the inside of a turn guess what happens??????? Sediment!!! And if things did not blow out last year then everyone would be happy right?????
To clean out sediment is not allowed under any permit!!! We live in a area that has Whirling desese spores that live in the sediment and it is a Gold Metal Fishery!!! That makes things very difficult and very expensive. There are a lot more fisherman than people who want to surf a wave!!!!!!!!!!

Smelter would qualify for an RICD in the present state but the city has hired Gary and Scott to design a number of sites not just Smelter, and then the city will sign off on what they want to build and go forward with the RICD and the structure that is approved. THE NEW BILL IS NOT GOING TO AFFECT EXISTING RICD'S AND WILL NOT AFFECT DURANGO'S. AS LONG AS DURANGO FILES BEFORE JULY OF NEXT YEAR, AND THEY WILL.
The city of Durango spent 500K to build a skate park that maybe 12 people use!!!!
So people stop bitching and get involved. Write letters to the city council tell them how much river recreation brings to the quality of life in d-town and how much it would mean to have a feature like salida right at 9th street or at rotory park or even at smelter.... It is moving forward. Get involved...
John Brennan
Animas River Task Force and "local slalom coach"

sward · 11-07-2005

Word John,

Durango City Council
949 East 2nd Ave.
Durango, CO 81301

or

citycouncil@c1.durango.co.us

I am writing a draft. I know this has been posted before, but does anyone know where to find revenue statistics for the Golden ww park?

Thanks,

Steve.

kentv · 11-08-2005

I bet Porzak and his crew would have the statistics your looking for: 303-443-6800

brendodendo · 11-08-2005

When we did it it was winter and contrary to John, it was on a whim, in the middle of the night.
As for the Skate park. 12 people is a little small of an eatimate, while the actual cost for the original set of bowls was around $75000. But yes please do get involved.

As For me, I want action in the Roaring Fork Valley.

Brenden