SB 62 has passed 4-3 - Mountain Buzz

Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-21-2005   #1
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 178
SB 62 has passed 4-3

SB 62 narrowly passed committee vote today 4-3 and will be sent to the full senate sometime soon. We can still defeat this bill in the general assembly if we let our senators and congressmen know that it is wrong and it will not support tourism.

We need to explain to them that by limiting the demand flow to 350 cfs very few whitewater parks will be worth paddling. We must explain to the senators and representatives that this bill will effectively help kill whitewater boating in much of colorado's playparks and towns.

This is a very unpopular bill as can be seen by the narrow passage, we still have the chance to veto it. There are several links in previous posts to contact senators and representatives, even a premade letter that takes about a minute to send, do your part and tell them you disaprove of this bill.


Whiskey's for drinkin' and waters for fightin'
- Mark Twain
wycoloboater is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 02-21-2005   #2
Andy H.'s Avatar
Wheat Ridge, Colorado
Paddling Since: 1995
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,777
SB62 has moved out of committee and is headed for the full State Senate for a vote. Now is the time to contact your State Senator and voice your opposition to this bill that will be used as a backdoor method to gut the recreational in-stream flows.

You can find your senate district here:

And contact your State Senator here:

Please write or call them and ask that they oppose this bill!

You don't have to be eloquent or show extensive knowledge of the bill, just ask that they oppose it. Remember - Democracy is not a spectator sport.


Nothing in the world is more yielding and gentle than water. Yet it has no equal for conquering the resistant and tough. The flexible can overcome the unbending; the soft can overcome the hard. - Lao Tse
Andy H. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2005   #3
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 342
When does the vote take place? I'm busier than I have ever been in my life with college, but I'll try to send somthing to my local senator. I know I've been less than diplomatic in the past with my views on this site, but I'll try to keep my views diplomatic. This is too important to let it slip by!

If you care about whitewater parks in the state, now is the time to act. The state is only going to grow and require more water for urban consumption so we must secure these junior instream water rights for the future.
cemartin is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 02-22-2005   #4
latenightjoneser's Avatar
steamboat, Colorado
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 421
I just wanted to encourage everyone to call every district and act lilke they live in that district and oppose the bill.

Are you kidding me? There better be more people in Colorado who support having water in the stream vs. out of the stream or we're in a lot of trouble.

latenightjoneser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2005   #5
The next zone, .
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,200

I was just wondering how the vote fell and who voted against this bill and for this bill. I am going to look it up - if I had to bet on it I would say this fell right along party lines. With 4 Republicans voting for it and 3 Democrats voting against it.

To H20toxic et al – I am calling you out. You seemed to loooooooooooove that Republican agenda during election time - anyone of you want to defend this Republican agenda? I would love to hear from one of you.

RICD filings by many communities in Colorado has many “water hogs” stepping up to the table and actually thinking about talking of solutions that could keep more water in rivers all over the state. SB62 if passed will eliminate or put off much of this dialogue.

We as river users are the low man on the totem pole (basically insignificant and a nuisance to the large water players in the state - this point is further driven home by the passage of SB62 to a full vote) and we need items such as RICD’s to force water issues so that we as river users have a voice that the “water hogs” are forced to listen to. They have the power and the $ to make sure that the front range has the ability to grow blue grass in the suburbs and that the rest of us are stuck with smaller and smaller amount of water in our rivers.

To all river users. Let’s not live up to our lackadaisical “boater” reputation. Get in touch with your representatives. I have more than once on this issue and I hope the rest of you will as well. If we as a group do not we will only have ourselves to blame when we are bouncing down on 150 cfs of nothing.
Jahve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2005   #6
Monroe, Utah
Paddling Since: 1990
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 137
Does this mean that I will have to go to Idaho this summer for my month long kayakin' trip to celebrate my 60th. birthday instead of spending money in Colorado? I was thinking of switching to Colorado from Idaho because of the drought in Idaho, but sounds like there will be a long boating drought in Colorado. Does it start this summer or have we got one more year?
Ron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2005   #7
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 178
As has been said before, this is super super important if we want water in our rivers. If this bill is defeated we can insure that we will be able to talk to the state about instream water for recreation.

All of you who are trying to build ww parks in your town, Palisade, Glenwood, Bayfield, etc and those who already have parks and want to expand or even enjoy your park, THIS IS IMPORTANT!! Do your part to give input as to how bad this is for our local and state economy. As shitty as it is sometimes, we are a tourist state and if we want to keep being a tourist state during the summer we need to defeat this.

Below a link so you can read the bill for yourself and make educated suggestions to government:

RDNEK, Here are the votes for committee, almost all on party lines except Isgar who is a democratic rancher from the southwest, montrose area.

Entz(R) Yes
Groff(D) No
Hillman(R) Yes
Taylor(R) Yes
Tochtrop(D) No
Grossman(D) No
Isgar(D) Yes


-Has anyone contacted AW on this or is it to short of a time frame for AW to do something? They may be able to give some good input/support to defeat this thing.
Whiskey's for drinkin' and waters for fightin'
- Mark Twain
wycoloboater is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2005   #8
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 6
I did contact AW to let them know about this important legislative fight and to see if they could help, and this was the response that I received from John Gangemi:

We have already sent an alert to our email lists in CO requesting they
engage their legislators on this issue. We also have board members and
volunteers working with the legislature.

Thanks for taking the time to email. You can help with our grassroots
efforts by alerting folks you know in the paddling community.

However, I did not see any posts or alerts on their website...but ironically there was a post in the Mt Buzz main forum asking for reviews of local playspots for an article in AW. Won't do much good if they dry the rivers up, and frankly I am disappointed with AW's effort and response. Seems that more effort is being placed on getting articles for AW than fighting this legislation. We are not just talking about one river, or playspot. It affects the entire state of CO and not just where the play parks are, but all of the water upstream of the parks as well. If SB 62 passes, it will affect all CO river users, not just those that utilize the play parks. I have been a strong supporter of AW, but wonder if there may be some misplaced priorities here. Couldnt hurt to contact AW through their website and let them know that this may be the biggest water issue in the Country right now affecting all of CO rivers.

Brian Brown
b2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2005   #9
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 67
Take the time and call or email your legislator

Take the time and call or email your legislators opposing SB 62, it will only take a couple of minutes to draft a letter and send it to all of legislators. Here is a response I got

Mike and Karen:

I too oppose this legislation. I fought against it in the Agriculture, Natural Resources and Energy Committee. We succeeded in removing the requirement that the RICD not interfere with other water development and projects, but the 350CFS limitation is still in the bill.

This will be an uphill battle on the Senate floor, but I will keep trying.


State Senater (I took his name out.)

Do your part and take the time to make a difference.
Mike Paris
mp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2005   #10
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 163
I just read this bill and can someone tell me of a single instance it would apply. The play parks i'm aware are fed be natural flow or diversions already in place for down stream rights. Rivers like the Ark would be except because they are not limited to kayak use.

Is this bill being created to stop future "play parks" getting use specific releases over 350cfs?
mescalimick is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

» Classified Ads
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:40 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.