water rights for kayakers

[telegurl]

http://www.durangoherald.com/asp-bin...ws051006_4.htm

A similar bill was proposed last year and was defeated. You can voice your opinion by writing/calling your representative.

[DanOrion]

Look at Isgar's photo. That man is pure evil; probably Cheney's long lost brother. I'll bet, given the chance, he rapes house pets. ...didn't pass last year, Isy, not passing this year either, now stay away from my potbellied pig, ya pigf_cker!

[gh]

I dont understand the issue here. I dont know of any whitewater parks that have guaranteed flows for kayaking. All the parks I have been to, admittedly thats just the Ark parks, have flows for other purposes and we just surf on it before it gets there. The ark water is either headed to farmers or to make someones lawn green. What am I missing here?

[DanOrion]

http://www.courts.state.co.us/supct/...rdergolden.htm

http://www.hollandhart.com/newsitem.cfm?ID=319

In Colorado, water rights are based on the concept of "beneficial use," which has historically been limited to irrigation, municipalities, industry and other off-channel diversions. RICD's (Recreational In-Channel Diversions) are water rights to control water left in the natural channel through boat chutes, etc. The Colorado Supreme Court granted that these water rights constitute beneficial use and are legimitate.

RICD's ensure that future upstream development does not decrease the flow for kayak parks. For example, if Idaho Springs wanted to put in a HUGE reservoir to capture the spring runoff, they would be impeded by Golden's RICD for these high flows.

There are lots of water rights and development implications resulting from RICD's: 1) They can limit future upstream development, 2) they can limit the transfer of water from upstream reaches to downstream reaches, 3) they ensure that investment in a kayak park may be enjoyed into the future... etc.

[Paul]

Originally Posted by telegurl

http://www.durangoherald.com/asp-bin/article_generation.asp?article_type=news&article_p ath=/news/05/news051006_4.htm

Why would we get out our calculators if the article doesn't give us the damn formula? It's impossible to tell from this article what the effect of this legislation would be.

Did they think the formula would be too complex for the "average reader."

Or was it too complex for them?

Has anyone seen the allegedly complicated formula?

(If you can't tell, articles that screw up--or omit entirely--any quantitative information bug me.)

Thanks.

[bula]

Also, let's not be fooled. The choices are not water for kayakers or water for farmers. Like someone else said, the ag rights are the oldest in the state and are not threatend by the kayak course rights. The only rights that are threatend are exchanges, where a developer buys a farm and dries it up, taking the water out way upstream for new condos. With an RICD in between, the developer might have to leave a "live stream" in between- b/c an exchange right (that is only hypothetical before the application) would have to honor the rights already there. Oh no! A flowing river? Escaping??!! Stop the green giveaway. Give us dry channels and useless bright green lawns in the desert!

[double-a-ron]

"His bill, which he drafted with Rep. Kathleen Curry, D-Gunnison, tries to set a limit of how much water can be used for boating. A similar bill was defeated last year. It would have capped recreational water rights at 350 cubic feet per second, no matter how big the river is. "-qoute


now i'm pissed!!!

Little Miss Curry ran on a platform of helping recreation water rights. She showed up at the Gunnison Whitewater festival during her campaign and towed the line that us boaters wanted to hear. In fact one of the people who helped run her campaign is a friend and boating buddy of mine...If i could reach him in China, I'm sure he'd be pissed too. Just what we need, another backstabbing politician. GODDAMN IT!!!!!!! AAAAAGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


-aaron

[niz2004]

Posted for Drew Peternel LAWYER EXTRAORDINAIRE for Trout Unlimited:

"It doesn't prohibit RICD water rights (water rights for play parks) but does make it harder to get them. The interim water committee of the General Assembly will be voting on it on the afternoon of October 26 in room SCR 356 of the capitol, and there will be an opportunity for public comment. I'll be there. If it gets through the committee, it goes to the whole General Assembly in January."

Drew has a copy of the Draft Legislation if you are interested in the legal smegal: andrewpeternell@hotmail.com

[kentv]

When SB 62 was defeated last year, new RICD legislation was eminent. As the new kid on the block and open for interpretation, some feel RICD's are way to flexible and in need of more definition.

SB 62 was defeated because placing a one size fits all requirement for Colorado's made no sense. Recreational water on larger rivers was taking a major hit with SB 62. It does make sense for RICD's to be based more on the natural hydrograph, but is 40% of average flow enough for a "reasonable recreation experience" or should the structure and the intent of the feature be the factor for how much water should be allocated?

As the boating community, we must remain open to RICD legislation because the legislature is only going to continue to push through their ideals until they get something passed.

FYI - The Steamboat RICD is going to trial in a couple weeks. The CWCB is pulling out all their guns on this one.

[FlyingFluke]

Before people start to cry wolf, please consider that recreational water releases are a benefit for boaters. Of cause the fight will be over how much in particular, a hard thing to determine considering all the interest groups involved. Jim Isgar is a rancher and Democrat for the senate district surrounding Durango. The new bill is created around issues regarding the Animas-La Plata-Project, which at this point needs legislation for the allocation of Animas water. Or it gets sucked up (yes, directly beween Smelter and Santa Rita play features) into the reservoir. A-L-P remains the only water storage facility in the nation with no plans for what to do with the water. I could see potentially bad ideas budd from so much water right near an active coal mine, even though the President would have to "ease" environmental standards again to make another coal-powered generating plant in the Four Corners happen.
I found the talk about a "permanent" river feature interesting. What's going on in Durango? Is there a chance Smelter is getting some concrete?