State of CO River Dispute Task Force

[gyrogyrl]

OFFICE OF GOV. BILL RITTER, JR.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE WEDNESDAY, JULY 28, 2010

CONTACTS
Non-media: Office of Boards and Commissions, 303.866.6380, boards@state.co.us

Gov. Bill Ritter’s office is now accepting applications through Aug. 6 for a new River Access Dispute Resolution Task Force, a working group of up to 17 members that will present the Governor and lawmakers with recommendations by the end of the year.

The Governor created the task force to help craft a dispute-resolution process to resolve future conflicts between river users and private landowners on Colorado waterways. The task force follows heated debate that occurred earlier this year over proposed legislation, a specific dispute along the Taylor River and the introduction of several ballot measures which have since been withdrawn.

“The charge of this new task force is not to resolve the longstanding legal and policy dispute over whether there exists or ought to exist a ‘right to float’ in Colorado,” Gov. Ritter said. “Instead, the task force’s charge is to establish a framework for landowners and boaters to efficiently and fairly resolve disputes over the use of rivers as they arise.

“Private landowners invest untold sums into maintaining and enhancing the waterways that run through their lands,” the Governor added. “And more tourists come to Colorado to raft than in any other state; this activity alone generates $132 million per year in revenue. It is in the interest of the entire state that landowners and rafters have a means of resolving their disputes in a manner that keeps waterways open to rafting while respecting the interests and investments of private landowners.”

The charge of the task force is to develop a framework for resolving conflicts among landowners, anglers, commercial rafters, and the boating public on a stretch-by-stretch basis as disputes arise. The group will:

· Hold two public meetings in different parts of the state to gather stakeholder input.
· Hold at least four other open meetings to evaluate the public input and consider options for a dispute-resolution process.
· Prepare a final report with recommendations for the Governor and legislature by Dec. 31.

For more information, visit the Boards and Commissions website or call 303.866.6380.

[BoilermakerU]

Originally Posted by gyrogyrl

“The charge of this new task force is not to resolve the longstanding legal and policy dispute over whether there exists or ought to exist a ‘right to float’ in Colorado,”

But wouldn't that go a long way in settling disputes - clearly defined policy? Seems like a lot of the dispute comes from unclear policy.

Glad to see it is going to get some attention though.

[dirtbagpinner]

FYI. May be of interest to folks, in conjunction with these threads:

HB 1188 Outfitter Bill Committee Hearing

CW Board's Open Letter on House Bill 1188

See PDF attached file below for task force application

ADMIN NOTE: redundant text deleted and duplicate threads merged.

[Ole Rivers]

"Access" is often confused with "Use". To be legitimate and credible, the task force name, especially, must clearly define and project its intent and purpose.

"Access" is travel and activity to/from while "Use" is travel and activity of/on the bedlands and waters. Two completely separate issues to be resolved by agreement through the task force.

"Dispute" is a negative term. "Agreement" is a positive term.

"Natural stream", rather than "River", is the term used in the Colorado Revised Statutes to define state waters.

Clarity says yes and confusion says no.

To clarify for positive reasons, shouldn't the Colorado Boards and Commissions Office (boards@state.co.us , 303-866-6380) be asked to change the name of the task force to "*Natural Stream* Access *and Use* *Agreement* Resolution Task Force" rather than "River Access Dispute Resolution Task Force"?

[Ole Rivers]

Originally Posted by gyrogyrl

· Hold two public meetings in different parts of the state to gather stakeholder input.
· Hold at least four other open meetings to evaluate the public input and consider options for a dispute-resolution process.

Let's say each of the two public meetings allowing stakeholder input is 3 hours. There will be a bazillion folks from the public water user interest and another bazillion people from the private land title interest who will want to have their say. And what 2 places should the two meetings be held? Denver and Gunnison? What about Breck, Buena Vista, C Spgs, Durango, Ft Collins, etc? To kick off each meeting, the B&C Office will take 15-30 minutes to get things going. With only a couple hours at a couple meetings, seems to me most folk will be left speechless... both interests considered.

The other 4 meetings may be open, however, sounds like no additional stakeholder input from either interest, just sit there and listen to the goings on if you care to attend.

Seems to me there should be more stakeholder type meetings/time allotted for input scheduled...

While I'm at it, the task force should go on a field trip or two to experience the issues up close and personal.

[robanna]

Why do they insist on avoiding the real issue. Get a clear law on the books!

[caseybailey]

Originally Posted by robanna

Why do they insist on avoiding the real issue. Get a clear law on the books!

"They"?... Get out there and do it yourself. You can start a petition to get a vote on a constitutional amendment if you are so inclined. If you don't like that route, talk to your representatives. If you want change, work for it. If you want to complain, stick to the buzz.

[gyrogyrl]

@ oleriver: the executive order has already been signed, unlikely they will make changes to language or wording
@robanna: political reality says the chance of getting a law on the books through the legislature - well, you'd be better off playing the lottery - last session was the best chance, and it failed
@casebailey: in theory, citizens can run an initiative to amend the state constitution. in reality, it costs millions of dollars. no recent citizen's initiative has *ever* gotten on the ballot in Colorado without hiring signature gatherers, not to mention campaign and messaging strategists. often they spend millions and fail.

[BoilermakerU]

Originally Posted by caseybailey

"...If you want to complain, stick to the buzz...

That was funny...

[gyrogyrl]

Yes it was.