Mountain Buzz banner

1 - 19 of 19 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
HELP! Part of my job is to find out what waters are considered navigable. What I am hoping for is a list or any suggestions of streams, creeks, etc. that a tube, kayak, or raft can run, even if it is only for one week during the spring. I am only looking for those located in Western Colorado. Any suggestions are appreciated. Thanks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
580 Posts
As far as the Durango area:

Animas River, Florida River, Los Pinos River, Vallecito Creek, Lime Creek, West Lime Creek, Cascade Creek, Hermosa Creek, Cement Creek, Mineral Creek, South Mineral Creek.

Also: La Plata River, Junction Creek, Lightner Creek, Miller Creek, Falls Creek, Cunningham Creek, Beaver Creek, Piedra (some of the tributaries of the Piedra look runnable).

I am sure others can add a lot more. Hope this gets you started.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
688 Posts
What kind of job is this Carrie? How is this information going to be used?
-d
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
We are trying to determine jurisdiction over navigable waters, by recreational purposes. If the decision that we have jurisdiction over these waters, we will be able to protect them from changes that could impede the water levels or change the course of those water ways.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
396 Posts
Its my primitive understanding that as current federal regulations can be interpreted, the rain gutters on our rooftops are 'navigable waters' as are flash-flood gullys out in the middle of nowhere on the sides of plateaus and crud like that. Ill look for the language later. .. If I float my foamy through someones storm gutter which crosses private property, it isn't not tresspassing unless he it gets pinned or has to portage :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
Carrie, I'm curious - who do you work for?
I work for the Army Corps of Engineers. We are currently anticipating new guidance and our office is preparing on all levels. We are looking into the potenial situations if we lose jursidiction over some waters, how it will affect others later on. Example on a smaller level, there is a small perennial stream outside of Telluride that bottles the water and sells it nationally. We may lose jurisdiction over that stream and if that stream is altered upstream from the bottling company, it is possible that with the new guidance, we would be of no assistance because we have no jurisdiction. That is one small example. We are still in the fuzzy stage since we haven't received any solid guidance, so we are just preparing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
688 Posts
So, does the Army Corp of Engineers lose juristiction if a waterway is newly designated as navigable? Or the other way around?

Who would get juristiction if you lose it? What is the anticipated change in guidance and who is making that call?

Is the Army Corp of Engineers often on the side of the small business owner bottling water in small town USA?

Just trying to get a feel for if we should like or dislike you. ;) I thought that as a recreational water user, the Army Corp of Engineers was the only major threat to my hobby.

-d
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
48 Posts
Carrie,
I would second the reccomendation to pick up a copy of Whitewater of the Southern Rockies. It is a fairly exhaustive list of navigable rivers in Colorado. Also, you might want to request that folks forward you a list of Rivers and Creeks that are not documented in this book. Maj. Tim Kelley of the Army Corps is a current American Whitewater board member, lived for several years in CO and would be a valuable in-house resource. For others reading this thread, Tim is a tireless advocate for paddlers' access rights. He was the motive force behind the Sportsmans Paradise/Cheesman agreement of 2003.

Good luck.

Charlie Ebel
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
211 Posts
Possibly in relation to new federal legislation regarding Good Samaritan Act for mining reclamation projects?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
So, does the Army Corp of Engineers lose juristiction if a waterway is newly designated as navigable? Or the other way around?

Who would get juristiction if you lose it? What is the anticipated change in guidance and who is making that call?

Is the Army Corp of Engineers often on the side of the small business owner bottling water in small town USA?

Just trying to get a feel for if we should like or dislike you. ;) I thought that as a recreational water user, the Army Corp of Engineers was the only major threat to my hobby.

-d

If there is no jurisdiction over a water way, there will be no one to monitor it or have action over it. The new guidance is an outcoming of a supreme court case, also referred to as Rapanos.

http://www.uhttp://www.usace.army.m...army.mil/cw/cecwo/reg/cwa_guide/cwa_guide.htm
USACE, Civil Works Regulatory Program - CWA Guidance to Implement the U.S. Supreme Court Decision for the Rapanos and Carabell Cases

To be honest with you guys, I am just starting at the corps. Still learning the ropes but enjoy the Colorado River greatly. I raft westwater by Cisco, little chill action at the Upper Taylor, and almost every weekend, floating the river in our 100 degree weather. If you guys have any concerns, let me know and I will address those to the best of my knowledge or find more information for you. Thanks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
882 Posts
Hey guys, let's play nice. "Trust but verify." I too was concerned about what this info was going to be used for and that is why I asked Carrie who she worked for and what the deal was on the project. She's made a forthright response and offered to answer questions. That is a very good start in my book. We're all aware of the what the COE builds, but the fact is that none of us know if Carrie is the next Gale Norton or the next Kara Lamb.

Not trying stomp on anyone's curiousity, because I think it's prudent, but we've all seen some threads disintegrate into flaming before thoughtful exchanges can take place. So I encourage everyone to learn what it's all about before the the torches and pitchforks come out. I've seen Tim Kelly's posts for years and did my second Bailey run with him, but never had a clue that he was with the COE - that is surprising and cool news to me.

For my part, I'm curious as to what the new directives might be, esp. with the present administration in Washington, and since those directives are pretty key to us understanding what might be proposed by the COE. I'm also curious about the interfacing of COE jurisdictional issues and Colorado law. Whatever directives may come down the line, state water law still applies, so I'm wondering how the COE's jurisdiction affects this stuff.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
211 Posts
My post wasn't intended to flame anybody. Being in a governmental occupation where I deal with land use, planning, legislation and all kinds of different governmental entities and private sector interests on a regular basis, I've learned that it is invaluable to be aware, informed, educated and proactive in dealing with complex issues such as this very post. I think that the single biggest factor that is going affect growth in the Western U.S. for the foreseeable future is water. The pissing match has only begun. The downstream users that use water from Colorado have the political clout and finances to make an concerted effort to increase their allocation. If we don't deal with it now, we won't have it in the future. Get involved in the water district meetings and get online and check out water court conclusions and you'll find out just how complicated and crucial this process is. You know,there's nothing with asking questions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
882 Posts
I hear you, DE. Not trying to point a finger or anything like that. I thought this might be important enough an issue to just make sure it didn't go there. Without questions and skeptics I'd be drinking from Two Forks Reservoir right now.
 
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
Top