Mountain Buzz banner

1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
178 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
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.

Zach.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
4,173 Posts
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:
http://192.70.175.80/State/map.asp?state=CO&scope=&command=find&name=_self&cat=1&map=3

And contact your State Senator here:
http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_dir/senate/members/index.htm

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.

Thanks,

--Andy
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
342 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
421 Posts
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.

jeeeez
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,200 Posts
Bump

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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
137 Posts
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?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
178 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
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:

http://www.leg.state.co.us/Clics200...D107CBA587256F5D00809BA7?Open&file=062_01.pdf

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

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

Zach.

-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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
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:

Brian:
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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
67 Posts
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.

Thanks,

State Senater (I took his name out.)

Do your part and take the time to make a difference.
Mike Paris
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
163 Posts
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?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
316 Posts
Does it make any sense to make an appeal on Boater Talk? Maybe some out the of staters could call and express their opinions as well? I plan on calling my senator tomorrow.

Thanks for all of the information you guys have been posting I am learning alot.

ben
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
389 Posts
I just read this bill and can someone tell me of a single instance it would apply
OK. I can think of three, maybe four examples:
1) Denver suburbs or perhaps Co. Springs are looking to get more water by doing the following: Pumping more out of the Ark from the Otero pump station north of BV. The water will then follow the current infrastructure along the South Platte to the South Front Range. But, all the water rights for the Ark are spoken for. So, to "replace" the removed water, they are looking at building a new reservoir on the Taylor or Gunnison River, which will deliver water over the divide into Cottonwood Creek and down to the Arkansas River. The problem is that they are taking water out of the Ark above BV but replacing it below BV, which will significantly hurt the BV play park. The BV play park is being significantly upgraded and will be real cool. This dam project would also steal water from the Gunnison play park.
2) Steamboat has a play park along the Yampa. It's easy for farmers downstream to sell their water rights to farmers upstream. This is where the sponsor of the bill is located and it is certainly the farmers that motivated this bill. What gets me is the farmers up there use the water very inefficiently by just flooding fields to grow hay, which has low dollar value.
3) There are a number of big water diversions upstream of the planned Palisade water park. While those rights (~1000cfs) are senior to the water park, they leave enough water in the river. But, if they decide to double the diversion upstream, the play park will be hurt.
4) The city of Golden diverts its water from Clear Creek above the play park. While they don't divert much and they are pro water park, what if other larger municipalities acquire Clear Creek water and want to divert it from above the play park?

You get the idea. I'm sure there are other circumstances. While it may be more convenient for a water user to divert water from above a play park, the current law effectively says they can't move a diversion upstream after a play park is in operation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
67 Posts
Let me try to explain what this means for Clear Creek. Harvey or others in the know jump in and correct if I am off base.
Golden was awared 1000cfs by the courts 2 years ago. This has nothing to do with water releases. This just states that Golden is guaranteed 1000cfs for the whitewater park during peak run off months. Now if Clear Creek does not go over 1000cfs in the summer none of this pertains.

Example in the future , new jr water rights on Clear Creek are needed from the front range and mountain communities. They will only be able to take water from the park if it is over 1000cfs. So Clear Creek might be running 1500cfs up by Hermits but becuase of these new future water rights and Goldens 1000cfs gurantee the white water park was granted, Golden will have 1000cfs in the WW Park in Golden. The Jr water rights would be able to take 500cfs out above the park because that is how much is over the 1000cfs garantee. I know this is a little confusing but I hope this helps. On Clear Creek this has nothing to due with water releases. If they change it to 350cfs might as well take up a new sport becuase paddling in a maximum of 350 doesn't cut it.

Mike
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
323 Posts
It just took me about 1 minute to call my senator. If everybody does that then it could make a huge diffrence.
Cheers, Jeff
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
146 Posts
I sent an email to my rep and his Spam filter kicked it back to me. So much for technology. I guess the phone is the best solution.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
685 Posts
My Sen Rep. & Sen Pres. Joan Fitz-Gerald Will be Voting

I will be voting NO on this legislation when it is heard on Second Reading on the floor of the Senate on Friday, February 25. Senate President Joan Fitz-Gerald. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
27 Posts
Just left a message for good ole Jack Taylor. Our area has been able to slip through the cracks for the most part in regards to water rights so far but has become a larger target in the past few years. While ranching is a vital part of our community and the state, this bill could cause a lot of harm for many rivers in years to come.

I pleaded with him to reconsider his position, but I doubt that is going to happen since he is one of the main people who got this ball rolling. Special interest groups are trying to control our water in this state just like oil and drug companies are affecting our government branches.

Please look at the post on the first page and see who your rep is and how they voted on this. That is who needs to be pushed. So far the responses I saw listed were already against the bill.

Kent from Blue Sky West has been VERY vocal and active against this and I wish he had more help, including from myself. It is so easy to get side tracked with our daily lives and then all of a sudden something like this is upon us. I wish I knew more about how this will specifically affect us beyond just being able to enjoy the local play spot. The big picture is what scares me the most.

Take the time, spread the word. Maybe someone can point out main objectives that commoners like me can bring up if we actually get someone on the phone. I did my best to not just say "this sucks and I am against it because, well you suck" sort of a thing.
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Top