# HOw many people wrote/call legislation on SB 62?



## Jahve (Oct 31, 2003)

I sent in one for everyone that I knew - even my dog Pete shot out a e-mail and made a call - I hope that it helps out -


----------



## Andy H. (Oct 13, 2003)

I emailed my State Senator and also my House Rep (to help shoot down any House bills on the same subject).

-Andy


----------



## benpetri (Jul 2, 2004)

I emailed my state senator (Moe Keller for Golden / Lakewood) and she replied that she was voting against it.


----------



## dvc (Dec 12, 2003)

I emailed my state senator. She sent back a non-form letter email in which she replied that she was voting against the bill. Cool.

As far as getting my dog to send an email, his paws are too big for my keyboard and his messages get a little confusing. Although he did send an email it looked like: "%gys SB-?m Food K&os Vote swim "{+< Woof tailwag +"virnomen*& noseprint &&Mmm" And if you've ever let your dog type, you know means: "Snacks, mmmm, water, mmmm, time for my nap."


----------



## RiverWrangler (Oct 14, 2003)

I emailed all of them. Pagel, if this passes our little party may have to be put on hold (bastards). If not let's chat tonight about setting up the silent auction git down. I don't think a last minute call to your state senator this morning would hurt. I'm gonna give it a go right now. 
EvanJ


----------



## El Flaco (Nov 5, 2003)

I emailed mine (Sandoval) and got no response. She is a Democrat from Denver, so I would think she's not exactly on the side of ranching interests. We'll see.....


----------



## Arn (Nov 8, 2003)

I emailed two reps and got one response from Joan Fitzgerald who said she was voting NO on SB 62.

Arn


----------



## Roy (Oct 30, 2003)

I e-mailed both my Sen (Grossman) and my Rep (Romanoff), and heard back from neither.


----------



## Brian @ the Mountain Shop (Apr 12, 2004)

Pagel-

You know all these dudes here at the shop have called Senator Johnson. If anyone hears the results, please post!

Peace Out,


----------



## JonS (Sep 9, 2004)

I e-mailed Bob Bacon and did not receive a reply.

-J


----------



## rasdoggy (Jan 31, 2005)

*I did.*

I wrote mine, Got no reply.


----------



## stiff (May 23, 2004)

You know, the urban senators will almost certainly vote against it anyway. It's the rural senators we need to put pressure on. The one's that are most liable to respond to public opinion are the ones that have much recreation opportunities in their districts. 

Did the vote happen today? What happened?


----------



## westfall (Sep 19, 2004)

*the fight is not yet over ...*

Sadly this did pass the senate so the fight is not yet over. We still need to continue to pursue this with our elected Representatives. Here's the report from Amy Livingston:

Thank you for all of your help in working to defeat SB 62 and unfortunately the fight is not yet over.

SB 62 (Limiting Recreational Water Use) is still alive as it passed on the Senate Floor with all Republicans and 2 Democrats (Isgar and Takis) supporting the bill. 

Now SB 62 heads to the House and I will keep you updated on when the bill will be heard in Committee!

Please contact me with any questions!
Amy

Amy Livingston
Water Caucus Coordinator
Colorado Environmental Coalition


----------



## cstork (Oct 13, 2003)

The bill barely passed the senate. The senate makeup favors the rural communities, so they will prefer purely agricultural use of water. 

The representatives will have less agricultural votes, so we have a good chance of defeating it there. We need to make our voices heard. I hope the fishermen are expressing their views too.


----------



## Ed Hansen (Oct 12, 2003)

It is impossible to find any info about this from the newspapers and tv stations. Anyone know anyone in these places? Seems when they passed the bill to allow recreational flows, it was big news, now this is gonna squeak through without any media attention.


----------



## Brian @ the Mountain Shop (Apr 12, 2004)

*It's really on now!!!!*

Terrible news on this bill passing. While we could get down on the bs a lot of us feel oftentimes toward this process, it is time to really attack. We cannot allow this bill to pass the house. 

If you or your family has a job tied to summer tourism in this state or any other (this could set precedence), it is time to fight. If you want water in your rivers for after work floats or weekend trips or sessions at your local park, it is time to fight. We CANNOT allow this bill to pass the house. I know that if everybody reading these messages takes one hour per week to dedicate time here, we can make a huge difference. Write a letter to the editor or publish an op-ed in your local paper. Call local TV news stations. Talk to your local city councils and county commissioners about the money they stand to lose if the house version of SB62 passes. Not only do boaters lose here. Fishermen and women, swimmers and tubers, conservationists and naturalists, community economies-we all stand to lose. 

I for one am tired of being bullied by these folks. I am sick of short-sighted extraction-driven legislators messing with our resources. These folks should be protecting flows, not endangering them. If it's not recreational flows, it's private property issues. These people seem to be unhappy until they put a stop to recreational uses on our public waterways.

Sorry for the rant, but I am tired of our future being decided in legislature without involvement of the entire boating community. I know I have been laissez about issues in the past, but this is a problem we all must face together. What Amy, Mike, and everybody that has been working to stop SB62 has done is awesome and very appreciated by all of us. 

However, it is time now for all boaters to join up and fight this legislation. If we don't now, we may lose our water forever.

Again, sorry for ranting.


----------



## westfall (Sep 19, 2004)

All along the reports were that this is a bad bill and that it would not pass committee or if it did that it would not pass the senate. Both of these things happened which implies that it could also pass the House regardless of the geographic distribution of Representatives. 

It is time to make sure all of our Representatives know where we, their constituents, stand on this issue. As of this morning, this thread has been viewed 263 times on MountainBuzz. If most of those viewers can write a letter or make a phone call we can have an impact!

Here's a link to the text of SB 62:
http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics200...07CBA587256F5D00809BA7?open&file=062ag_01.pdf

If you do talk with or email your Representatives here is some sample text you might use to model your discussion:

Hi (Representative/Senator/Councilman ...) ______, my name is ______ and I am one of your constituents. I am calling to ask you to oppose Senate Bill 62 which limits our recreational water use.
Water-based recreation and tourism contribute significantly to Colorado's economy and quality of life. Unfortunately this bill is a one-size fits all approach which does not help Colorado, our rivers or our local economies.
With the increasing popularity of recreational activities such as kayaking, rafting and tubing, today recreational water rights are a very important
component of Colorado's water law. Please vote NO on Senate Bill 62 and thank you for your time.


----------



## holley (Mar 8, 2004)

I called Johnson, but only got a message machine. I'm ready for the next round, though...and I'll make sure to get more people involved for this one. Not good news this morning. I definitely feel threatened.


----------



## ryguy (Jan 19, 2005)

I sent a letter to Ron Tupa, And this was his response. i guess we needed to get to the people who voted for it!!




Dear Friend,

Thank you for your letter asking me to oppose SB-62,
the legislation which would add additional
requirements for consideration before a stream could
be diverted for recreational use.

I voted to oppose SB-62 during the senate
deliberations for all of the reasons you mentioned. If
passed, it would hamper outdoor recreational
activities, discourage tourism, and hurt small
businesses that relay on outdoor water sports.
Colorado needs all of the revenue that tourism
provides so passing this legislation would only hinder
our sluggish economy.

Moreover, SB-62 seeks to supersede a pending decision
before the Colorado Supreme Court. The court is
currently reviewing legislation (which I voted for)
that passed in 2001, SB-216, which allows for
in-channel water use. The court is also looking at
what is a beneficial amount of water that should be
used for these types of recreation. I think it would
be wrong to pass a law without waiting for the court?s
ruling on this issue.

I am in agreement with the League of Women Voters and
the Colorado Environmental Coalition, both of which
are opposed to the bill.

Thanks again for taking the time to express your
opinion on this issue. I sincerely value the views of
my constituents. If you would like to receive my
legislative newsletter please sing-up at
www.rontupa.com or send an email to
[email protected].

Sincerely,


Senator Tupa
State Senator


----------



## Alpine Kayak (Dec 23, 2003)

*Fact Sheet on SB62*

Here is an updated fact sheet that I just received from the Colorado Environmental Coalition

thanks everyone, keep up the work of spreading the word and making contact with your local officials.
-Sean



Oppose Senate Bill 62  Limiting Recreational Water Use


Water-based recreation and tourism contribute significantly to Colorados economy and quality of life. In 2001 the General Assembly enacted Senate Bill 216 placing limits on Recreational In-Channel Diversions (RICDs), water rights that protect stream flows for on-stream recreational uses such as kayaking. Under the 2001 legislation, only cities, counties, water districts and other types of local governments can hold RICD water rights, and the amount of water dedicated to these uses is restricted to the minimum stream flow . . . for a reasonable recreation experience." With the increasing popularity of recreational activities such as kayaking, rafting and tubing, today RICD water rights are a very important component of Colorados water law. 

The existing statute is currently before the Colorado Supreme Court, and it is likely that the Court will issue an opinion defining the exact scope of the limitations in the legislation in the next several months. Yet some in the General Assembly propose to further restrict RICDs and the corresponding ability of local governmental bodies to improve their economies and quality of life through the development of water-based recreation. It is premature and wasteful of the General Assemblys time and resources to bring forward new legislation on the topic now. 

Governmental bodies with decrees or applications for RICD water rights that will be impacted by Senate Bill 62: Pueblo, Golden, Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (Vail), Breckenridge, Steamboat Springs, Chaffee County (Buena Vista and Salida), Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District (Gunnison), Silverthorne and Longmont. All future RICD applications would also be impacted by the legislation. 

Economic Impacts: Local and state economies benefit from these recreational uses of water. For example, the City of Golden estimates that its recreational water park brings in $1.4 million to $2 million annually. If SB 62 passes, the ability of local governments to acquire and use RICD water rights will be severely diminished, and it is unlikely that local leaders will invest public funds to create these recreational amenities if the necessary stream flows cannot be protected. 

What SB 62 changes: 
	Eliminates the right under current law to appropriate an RICD for a reasonable recreation experience, and instead allows only the minimum flow for kayaking, canoeing, inner tubing, boating and rafting. This short-sited restriction prohibits local governments from using RICDs to create other legitimate, and economically important, recreational opportunities, such as fishing, wading or swimming. 
	Disallows RICD water rights greater than 350 cfs, a one size fits all approach that does not work for the diversity of rivers in the state. This unique use limitation, with no analogue in Colorado water law, discriminates against municipalities situated on larger rivers, where more water is necessary to create a recreation experience.
	Creates a new definition of control structure for RICD water rights. The definition, which applies both to new RICD rights and retroactively to existing rights, requires local governments to build structures that are larger and more expensive than is necessary.
	Requires the CWCB and water court to evaluate the RICD based on the impact to future upstream water use. Every water right, whether for an RICD or a more traditional consumptive use, impacts future upstream water development, but under the proposed legislation, RICDs would be the only second class water rights required to make way for future uses.


----------



## kayaker (Oct 29, 2003)

*SB62 - called Allards office*

Being ever the optimist and a true believer in democracy and the importance of the voice of the people, I phoned Senator Wayne Allards office I asked to speak to the senator.
After they laughed at me for asking to speak to my representative, I attempted to make a comment on SB62 by identifying myself as a constituent. They hung up after my first five words, "please vote no on senate ..." CLICK! 

If this is representative democracy, then my name is King Kong.

Senator Allard - by the corporations, for the corporations, a real sell-out.

keep calling! we gotta represent !
Thanks to the Colorado Environmental Coalition, keep up the good work.


----------



## kentv (Apr 3, 2004)

*Here is the letter I sent to most every Colorado newspaper:*

I've already got soft confirms from Steamboat Springs, Vail, Glenwood Springs and Gunnison papers and am hoping that others follow suit. 

My main problem with SB-62, beyond several others, is the flow issue of 350 cfs, which as we all know is not enough to maintain the river recreation and tourist economy that all of us depend on. 

I've alluded to trans-basin diversions being the main reason why they wish to limit these RICD's to such low flows. Let's face it, TBD's are going to occur with all the expected growth in the Front Range. The water is on the West Slope and Senate Bill 62 is just watching out for those future development interests. 350 cfs is not enough to satisfy our recreation and tourism interests and this must be defeated.

Also, the House will know which committee this Bill will be heard in, within 72 hours, I've been told. At that time we should really then focus our efforts to those sway those Representatives who sit on that specific committee. 

Here is the letter:

Senate Bill 62  Water, tourism and our recreation future.

Water, is the most defining character as to how we as a culture, living here in Colorado will prosper into the future. Our economy, lifestyle and growth are determined by how much water is available for us to use for consumptive and non-consumptive needs. Today, our tourist-based economy is now driving Colorados future and as the debate over recreational water rights continues to escalate, we must realize how important these rights are for our local economies and the future of Colorado.

River based recreation, is a cornerstone to this tourism success and making sure that we have reasonable flows, left in our rivers for kayaking, rafting, tubing and fishing will provide for our future inheritance. SB-62s inability to recognize this with its one size fits all flow regime of 350 cfs, is doing us no favors. Every river, stream and creek where Recreational In-Channel Diversions (RICD) flows are needed should be viewed independently from one another. These flows should be a percentage of historic flow and provide for a reasonable recreation experience that is realistic and can support a viable recreation and tourist-based economy. For example, the City of Steamboat Springs is applying for 1700 cfs at peak flow on the Yampa River; this is approximately 40% of the historic hydrographic flow and is certainly not greedy. It is realistic that 1700 cfs will help sustain a healthy river which our local economy depends on through river related recreation and our local tourism opportunities.

Senator Taylor fears that future upstream growth and water storage will be affected by these RICD flows. Here in the Yampa Valley, and other river basins in the State, upstream municipalities, existing agricultural and industrial interests have more than adequate water rights and potential for water exchanges. So the issue in trying to limit an RICD to 350 cfs at a maximum must be one of storage, but storage for whom? Could the actual intent of SB-62 be the protection of unlimited trans-basin diversions for Front Range development? Those interests consistently challenge RICD applications in Colorado District and Supreme Court, and its those interests who will benefit the most by putting a one-size fits all cap on RICD flows.

Its hard for me not to, so I will question the allegiance here. The goal in limiting RICD flows seem to provide evidence that Senator Taylor is not looking after our West Slope or tourism related interests. It would seem to me that hes bowing down to pressure from his Water Buffalo friends and Front Range developers.

Over the next 25 years, Colorados population is projected to grow by at least 2.8 million people. The majority of these folks will be living in the Front Range where current water supplies will not adequately satisfy such thirst. So, where will the water come from? The Yampa River, Colorado River, Gunnison River and other Western Slope rivers, streams and creeks are going to supply this water. Lets face it, additional storage is necessary and water will be needed to fill these reservoirs and provide for trans-basin diversions. Certain West Slope rivers will be depleted, and your home river, including mine, the Yampa River, may cease to be the rivers we know and love. But, lets first and foremost allow for water to remain in our rivers to support the tourism and river-based recreation necessary for our future.

Lets embrace river-based recreation as a key to the success of our local economies and provide for this with realistic RICD flows. SB 62 is not planning for this and must be defeated.

Kent Vertrees
Steamboat Springs, CO


----------



## stiff (May 23, 2004)

Nice posts by Alpine Kayak and kentv. Thanks. 

I want to mention that of all the water currently diverted from the West Slope to the East Slope, 15-20% is used for urban use. If the Front Range doubles in the next 25 years, that means they need an additional 15-20% of water. Some or much of that will come from East Slope farmers. Hence little additional water will need to be diverted. 

A massive amount of water is already diverted--mainly for agricultural use. There just isn't much more water than can be diverted. And it would be expensive to divert. Dams are politically very difficult to build any more. It's much cheaper to just buy water that is already on the East Slope. 

Over the last 10 years, conservation efforts caused Denver water use per person to drop 30%. That leaves room for some growth. 

The wrinkle in this is the upcoming water crisis in Castle Rock/Highlands Ranch area, between Denver & Co Springs. This is fast growing, all with big lawns and many golf courses. (I wouldn't care if their water bills go way up.) Not only is it fast growing, but most of their water is well water that is drying up fast. They will have to get river water soon. The big questions are how soon is the well water gone and from where to get the river water. Denver owns the upper South Platte and won't sell. They'll probably get it from the Ark, just as Colorado Spings does. They'll probably buy the water rights from farmers, which will further strain the economy in that part and cause an uproar. The thing that concerns me is that the water may be diverted from the Ark above Buena Vista, so it will reduce most of the Ark. I hope BV and Salida have applied for lots of recreational water. But, should we ask these guys to spend $100 million to pump water from Pueblo so we can float the Ark? Ah, Salida and BV will probably sell their water rights for less than that, which would be a bummer. The main thing is to force those guys to conserve. Make them pay big bucks for the water so they use it sparingly.

This Castle Rock/Highlands Ranch water issue may be the biggest fall out if SB 62 passes. It may make it easier for them to take Ark river water since it will reduce Salida & BV's rights. This is probably on the order of 100-200 cfs.

The political battle will be whether Castle Rock/Highlands Ranch should get its water from marginally profitable farmers on the East Slope or from more dams and diversions on the West Slope. My guess is the water will come from the farmers. 

Note that if SB 62 fails, that means Castle Rock/Highlands Ranch will have to pay Salida & BV for the water as well as the farmers. This may make buying existing East Slop water more expensive than building a new dam and diversion from the West Slope. So, SB 62 failing may increase the likelihood of new diversion from the West Slope.

Damn this is complicated. But, we know we want SB 62 to fail.

Overall, I don't think this is a Front Range/West Slope issue. I think it is just agricultural interests wanting to make their rights dominant.


----------



## stiff (May 23, 2004)

Found some reliable statistics:

The state study at http://cwcb.state.co.us/SWSI/Demand_FactSheet_7-19-04.pdf, estimates that the additional 2.8 million people in Colroado in year 2030 will need an additional 630,000 acre feet of water. The state agriculture currently uses 11,400,000 acre feet of water. So, all those damn additional people will have to steal 5.5% of agricultural water to satisfy their demands. 

And it will probably be less than that for the Front Range. The 630,000 figure is statewide--West Slope and East Slope. That estimate probably doesn't include how effective the conservation methods have been and how they will reach other people as municipal water prices continue to go through the roof.

Also, 
Of the 11,4000,000 state wide agricultural use, 7,000,000 of that is West Slope use. Current West Slope diversion is about 550,000 acre feet. 

A real interesting map of the West Slope-East Slope diversion is at http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resourse-647-wwa_map_3.pdf It shows how many diversion projects there already are. There aren't any more easy diversions available.


----------



## benrodda (Mar 27, 2004)

So what is the time line here... what are the next steps for this bill and what do we need to be doing?

Has the media been involved in this... do we even want them in this?

ben


----------



## Spin Doc (Mar 10, 2005)

*Economic Impact is the Key*

The key to this fight is demonstrating to the old guard water users (ranching/agricultural interests) that whitewater parks can provide a positive economic impact to communities across the state.

I helped get the Vail park built back in 2001 and I testified against SB62 at the Senate Agriculture Committee hearing a few weeks ago (it passed there on party lines 4-3). In response to my testimony and that of Golden, Steamboat and Breck, Senator Taylor committed that his bill would not affect those parks that have already filed for water rights.

*But that's not enough!*

SB62 subodinates the water rights of all FUTURE whitewater parks. I know places like Glenwood, Palisade, Buena Vista, Avon and other communities are working on proposed parks. This bill would limit their water rights to 350 CFS and give all upstream water users a senior right.

As a community of percieved dirtbags, we need to prove the economic impact of whitewater parks. Here are some important numbers:

Golden's park generates approx. $2 million in incremental visitor spending

Vail's park generates between $422,000 and $1.1 M in economic stimulus to the community

Breck's park generates between $167,000 and $427,000 economic stimulus to the community

The Teva Mtn Games, which is centered around a rodeo in the whitewater park, generated approx. $1.1 million in incremental visitor spending in 2004.

The point is we need to prove that whitewater parks are an effective and inexpensive (most cost less than a playground) economic engine for CO communities. Don't let SB 62 threaten the future of all future parks.

I can verify all these numbers with 3rd party research. I have electronic copies I can share.

Call you Senator, write your paper--let people know you oppose SB 62.

Ian Anderson
Vail Valley Chamber & Tourism Bureau

P.S. The town of Avon is seriously considering a whitewater park at Bob's Bridge. Could be sweet!


----------



## kentv (Apr 3, 2004)

*What other rivers have RICD potential?*

Thinking strategy here.....

Once the House committee is set for the next reading of this Bill, we will have the names of those House members sitting on that specific committee whom we can call. Also, your local House rep will be the one you should call or write to because if this Bill passes the committee it will then go to the House floor for final approval.

Ian is correct in that the most important point in this is that RICD flows will sustain the river recreation and tourist economy that these diversions (Parks) were made for. It's all about the dollar here and convincing your Rep that without adequate flows, these Parks, will not do us any good. 

Here are the existing RICD's and those who have already applied.

Ft. Collins - Poudre
Littleton - South Platte
Golden - Clear Creek
Breckenridge - Blue River
Aspen - 
Vail - Gore Creek
Gunnison - Gunnison
Pueblo - Ark
Longmont - 
Steamboat Springs - Yampa

Any others I've missed?

Beyond Glenwood, Palisade, Buena Vista and Avon as potentials for future parks requiring RICD's, what other rivers, towns or locations could have parks in the State that would require a RICD? 

Here are some potential others:

Town - River
Salida - Ark
Pagosa Springs - San Juan
Ft. Collins - Poudre (upping their existing RICD)
Uncompagre - Ridgeway
? - Rio Grande
Durango - Animas

Any others?

Only counties, cities, water districts, sanitation districts and water conservation districts can apply for RICD's, but developing a list to inventory the potential is needed.


----------



## earthNRG (Oct 24, 2003)

How about:

Denver - South Platte River....Confluence Park
Boulder - Boulder Creek

I know that these are not the most popular (or sanitary) places to play (in a kayak), but a lot of people use these parks for recreation. Really, with as old as these parks are, I'm surprised they do not already have a RICD. Also, doesn't Lyons have a park?


----------



## Arn (Nov 8, 2003)

Lyons does have a Whitewater Park and the water that flows through Lyons is a huge supplier for Northern Colorado. We have ButtonRock Reservoir above us and the Big Thompson Project (CBT) dumps into our river just downstream of the Black Bear Hole. CBT and the St Vrain River are the main supply for both Boulder Reservoir and Longmont. There are also many large ditches that come off of the St Vrain as well. Quite honestly I am a bit afraid for a drastic reduction in flows in the St Vrain over the next 10 years as pipelines replace ditches and rivers and the water rights move from Ag users to municipalities. Unfortunately, Lyons does not have the resources for filing for RICD at this time. Any idea how much it would cost?


----------



## kentv (Apr 3, 2004)

I know the Steamboat RICD filling has cost the city over $100,000. Not sure on exact amounts. 

Unfortunately, here in the Yampa Valley there are many that are fighting against this RICD. Thus, costs go up to pay for litigation. RICD's shouldn't cost that much, especially if the RICD flows can be agreed upon prior to the Colorado Water Conservation Board hearing which is the first hearing that a RICD application goes through. Identifying all upstream users to make a reasonable flow request from the get go will bring costs down. 

Has Lyons even examined this? Looking at the park and the average hydrograph, what levels would kayakers like to see at a minimum for an expert level kayak play park?


----------



## kentv (Apr 3, 2004)

Article in today's Steamboat Today, says that the Steamboat RICD has cost the city $207,000. More than half, $106,000 has gone to Porzak, Browning & Browning, for attorney fees. They've budgeted $280,000 and will probably spend more than before it's all done.


----------



## stiff (May 23, 2004)

SB 62 was submitted by the senator from Steamboat, wasn't it? Sounds like there is a real battle going on up there, which probably helped motivate SB62. 

It seems strange that it is such a large battle since Steamboat's RICD is junior to all the other water rights. Anyone know why the big battle in Steamboat? 

How many cfs is Steamboat applying for? 

I'm shocked and disappointed that Salida and BV haven't applied for a RICD. Since it's been done before, It should just be a simple process. I guess when others fight the RICD is when it gets expensive.


----------



## kentv (Apr 3, 2004)

Senator Taylor, from Steamboat Springs, sponsored the bill and Tom Sharp was the main author. Tom sits on the Colorado Water Conservation Board as well as many other water roundtables and boards in the Yampa Valley and across the State. He is an expert in Colorado water law and has a practice law here in Steamboat for a long time. 

The Steamboat RICD was filed for 1700 at its peak and for 120 at low flow.


----------



## tpalka (Oct 31, 2003)

Wrote a letter to the paper, and another to Rep. Tom Massey. Seems like this is the last week to mobilize, as the House is likely to vote on it at the end of this week or early next week. Attaching the letter to the editor, should appear in the Mountain Mail tomorrow or the day after I hope.

tom.



Colorado House of Representatives will vote this week on a bill that
could greatly affect Salida's and state-wide economy. The bill is SB
62, titled "Limiting Recreational Water Use." I have not seen any
coverage of it the Mountain Mail, and would like to share some
information about this bill. Note that SB 62 has already passed the
Senate, and other than public input, I am not sure what could stop it
from passing the House.

In most basic terms, this bill states that "recreational in-channel
diversion (RICD) in excess of 350 CFS shall conclusively be deemed to be
wasted, and not placed to beneficial use," a statement then used as a
basis for limiting all water flows related to recreation. 350 cfs is a
one-size-fits-all approach that makes little sense (350cfs on the
Arkansas is dramatically different from 350cfs on the Colorado), and the
bill overrides the notion that RICD's are granted with a "reasonable
recreation experience" in mind. SB 62 also does not consider fishing a
beneficial use, and allows future (junior) water rights to override the
RICD rights. It is really a thinly veiled move to limit any
recreation-related water rights to preserve the future ability to shift
water between different basins. In other words, a front range city
could apply to remove Arkansas water upstream of BV, and not have to
respect our RICD right, since it is recreational.

The two cornerstones of Salida's economy are tourism and construction.
The river is the main draw for tourists, with activities ranging from
whitewater rafting and swimming to fishing, an economy that brought in
$80 million to our county in 2003. Construction has to do with people
moving here because of the quality of life Chaffee County has to offer.
I believe that our county's economy would greatly suffer should SB 62
pass -- just look all the river-related projects happening now: Salida
riverside park, Buena Vista's whitewater park, the South Main
development, FiBArk, and more. What would happen if the river had, at
best, only the minimum amount of water to float a boat?

I urge you to contact our representative Tom Massey today and to ask him
to vote against SB 62. Email him at [email protected] or call him at
303-866-2747.


----------



## kentv (Apr 3, 2004)

Good job Tom, and nice letter explaining why SB-62 is no good.

Here is the link regarding today's decision from the State Supreme Court and it's great news. 

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~53~2762139,00.html

But still, if SB-62 passes, the courts decision may not have much punch.


----------



## jeffro (Oct 13, 2003)

*A quick update on the status of SB 62*

A quick update on the status of SB 62

SB 62: Limiting Recreational Water Use has been assigned to the House Ag. Committee--Penry, Gallegos, McKinley and McFayden are our targets, however, we should be working all Representatives in case it goes to the floor. So please call your representatives and ask them to oppose the bill. The more people you can get to call the better.


----------



## cstork (Oct 13, 2003)

SB 62 was assigned to the house agricultural committee??? Talk about a rubber stamp! Don't waste your time with them. Of course they will approve it. 

The people to focus on are the swing votes. The representatives from agricultural districts will clearly vote for it while the representatives from recreation based communities like Salida, Glenwood Springs will clearly vote against it. I expect that representatives from urban areas that have upcoming water shortages (Douglas County!) will also vote for this. 

The swing votes may be the ones from the urban front range that have secure water, like Denver and areas north. And, unlike in the Senate, the urban front range has many representatives. 


We should focus our lobby efforts on urban representatives that don't have water issues, like most of Denver and north. Don't call/write your representative unless he may be a swing vote, call/write a swing representative. They may ask for your address/zip code to confirm you are in their district, but only the zip code is really important. 

And the good news of the Supreme Court supporting kayakers means nothing if SB 62 is passed. If anything, this ruling will encourage the opposition to argue that SB 62 is needed. SB 62 negates the ruling.


----------



## kentv (Apr 3, 2004)

Today is the day that this bill is being heard in the House Ag Committee. If it passes today, we need to get fired up tommorrow and call our House Reps.

Stay tuned.


----------



## tpalka (Oct 31, 2003)

Any news on how it went?


----------



## el gordo (Oct 10, 2003)

I was informed by Amy Livingston today, that the Agr. Committee vote would be postponed till this Wed. I will let you know if I hear anything else. So, everyone keep calling and writing.


----------



## cstork (Oct 13, 2003)

Here's what the Denver Post says about the bill. I'm concerned about the line "The committee amended Senate Bill 62 to further tighten the amount of water kayak courses could claim" 



> *Kayak water-claims bill stalls*
> 
> After more than three hours of testimony, the House Agricultural, Livestock and Natural Resources Committee deadlocked 5-5 on whether to send a bill that creates new limits on water decrees for kayak courses to the Judiciary Committee or the full House.
> 
> ...


While it sounds good that the bill stalled, I expect the Agricultural committee will eventually approve the bill. Perhaps they just want to hear more testimony that will further help the bill. 

The part about further tightening the amount of water is very, very bothersome.


----------



## tpalka (Oct 31, 2003)

*It passed*

Well, the bill has passed the committee, with 8-2 votes. My understanding is that:

1. the lobbying effort was huge -- 2 people lobbying against it, and something like 26 representing the proponents. 

2. the bill will go to the house floor tomorrow, and be open for debate and then the final vote. If it passes the house, it'll become law.

If you haven't contacted your representative yet, now is the time.


tom.

PS. Denver Post had another article on it today:

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~53~2777174,00.html


----------



## stiff (May 23, 2004)

I am disappointed that I don't see the CWWA doing anything about this bill. I'm sure they posted on their web site for members to contact their representatives, but they haven't communicated what is happening, what it means, how to best respond, or anything. The CWWA should have sent a representative to testify at these hearing. As the main kayaking organization in the state, they should have found a way to testify. 

I am really, really disappointed in the CWWA. This party is nice, but this bill is more important. How can I vote out the governing board of the CWWA? Or should I just drop my membersip? 

Seems like we need to fight this bill without CWWA's help.


----------



## Alpine Kayak (Dec 23, 2003)

*Some more info*

Here is some more info that I was forwarded today and asked to get out to the public: Keep up the good work everyone!

Update on the amendments to the bill:

· SB 62s one size fits all approach is WORSE. Now it is not just limited to 350 cfs, but to 350 cfs or the average daily flow, which ever is less. This will lower the cap even more and in wet years it prohibits municipalities from claiming higher flows which would have otherwise been possible. 

· SB 62 no longer includes a third side for the control structure 

· SB 62 no longer applies to any governmental entity which has filed for or has a decree for a recreational in-channel diversion (RICD) prior to February 17, 2005.



We will win this fight and here is what we need to do to make that happen (other suggestions obviously welcome & appreciated):



1. NEW MESSAGE: We need to make it personal and focus our message on the fact that SB 62 is anti-tourism, anti-rural economies and anti-jobs. 



2. CALL YOUR REPRESENTATIVE and GET A FRIEND TO CALL! We need to generate a ton of citizen phone calls to all of our legislators using the above message. Please see sample phone alert which is pasted below and please pass it on to everyone you know!!!



3. WRITE A QUICK LETTER TO THE EDITOR and send it to many different newspapers around the state: We need Letters to the Editor to show the massive opposition of local governments, organizations, citizens, recreationists...etc The legislators read their local and statewide papers every day and the more they see our opposition to this bill, along with the phone messages from their citizens, the better chance we have! See attached letter to the editor talking points and newspaper contact information!



We are Large and in Charge:

Remember, we have a coalition of over 80 entities including local governments, business owners, conservationists and recreationists opposing this bill along with major media outlets including the Denver Post and the Rocky Mountain News.



This is a David and Goliath kind of fight so grab your slingshot (your phone will do) and lets get it on!





SB 62Anti-tourism, anti-rural economy and anti-jobs 
Letter to the Editor Tip-Sheet

A written letter to the editor is one of the most effective ways to express your opinion on state legislative issues. Here are some tips to help increase your likelihood of publication: 
	Be concise (200-300 words is a good rule of thumb).
	Clearly state your point.
	Use vivid language and imagery. 
	Where possible, refer to editorials or articles that the paper has printed. 
	Recommend a course of action to the reader. 
	Letter can be faxed, mailed, or in most cases emailed to the paper. 
	Include your name, address, and phone number. 
	If you are sending an email, write LTE in the subject line and copy/paste LTE in the body of the message.

Sample Talking Points to Use in Your Letter:
	I am writing to urge our State Legislature to VOTE NO on Senate Bill 62 which is an anti-tourism, anti-rural economy and anti-jobs piece of legislation.
	Water-based recreation and tourism, like rafting and kayaking, contribute significantly to Colorados economy and quality of life. 
	For example, the Arkansas river contributes over $80 million annually to Chaffee Countys economy from commercial rafting and fishing, private floaters and kayakers.
	The City of Golden estimates that its recreational water park brings in $1.4 to $2 million annually. 
	SB 62 will eliminate local jobs dependent on the river, and rural communities and Colorados tourism will suffer the consequences


Statewide Newspapers and some Local Papers:


The Denver Post
Letters to the Editor
1560 Broadway
Denver, CO 80202-1577
[email protected]
fax: (303) 820-1502
voice: (303) 820-1331

The Rocky Mountain News
Letters to the Editor
100 Gene Amole Way
Denver, CO 80204
[email protected]
fax: (303) 892-2568
voice: (303) 892-5477 
The Boulder Daily Camera
Mailing Address: PO Box 591
Boulder, CO 80306 
Main Address: 1048 Pearl St. Boulder CO 80302
[email protected] 
fax: (303) 449-9358
voice: 303-473-1305

The Fort Collins Coloradoan
1212 Riverside Ave 
Fort Collins, CO 80524
[email protected]
voice: (970) 224-7733
The Pueblo Chieftain
PO Box 4040
825 West Sixth St. Pueblo CO 81003
[email protected]
fax: (719) 544-5897
voice: (719) 544-3520

The Colorado Springs 
Gazette Telegraph
30 S. Prospect St. Colorado Springs CO 80903 
[email protected]
fax: (719) 636-0202 voice: (719) 636-0210 (Sean Paige)

The Colorado Springs Independent 
235 S. Nevada Colorado Springs, CO 80903
[email protected]
fax: (719) 577-4107
voice: (719) 577-4545

The Greeley Tribune
PO Box 1690 Greeley, CO 80632
[email protected] 
fax: (970) 356-5780 ?
voice: (970) 352-0211

The Durango Herald
1275 Main Ave. Durango, CO 81301
e-mail address: Go to letters to the editor, fill in a form, and then hit send
General Tel: (970) 247-3504
voice: 375-4560 (Bill Roberts)

The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel
PO Box 668 
Grand Junction, CO 81502
[email protected]
Fax: (970) 244-8578
Voice: (970) 242-5050

The Glenwood Springs Post Independent
2014 Grand Ave Glenwood Springs CO 81601-4162
[email protected] 
Fax: (970) 945-4487
Voice: (970) 945-8515








Montrose Daily Press
PO Box 850 Montrose, CO 81402
General Tel: (970) 249-3444
Fax: (970) 249-2370
News Editor: (970) 252-7036 (Mike Robuck)
[email protected]

Steamboat Pilot & Today
PO Box 4827 Steamboat Springs, CO 80477
E-mail: Submit online
Fax: (970) 879-2888
Tel: (970) 879-1502
Vail Trail
PO Box 6200 Vail, CO 81658
[email protected] 
Fax: (970) 328-0573
Tel: (970) 32 TRAIL

Vail Daily
40780 US Hwy 6&24 Avon, CO 81620
Tel: (970) 949-0555
E-mail: Submit a form online

Valley Courier
401 State Ave. Alamosa, CO 81101
General Fax: (719) 589-6573
General Tel: (719) 589-2553
Ruth Heide (News Editor): [email protected]
(719) 589-2553

Summit Daily News
PO Box 329 Frisco, CO 80443-0329
[email protected]
Tel: (970) 668-3998

Mountain Mail
PO Box 189 Salida, CO 81201
Tel: (719) 539-6691


Gunnison Country Times
218 N. Wisconsin Gunnison, CO 81230
[email protected]
Fax: (970) 641-6515
Tel: (970) 641-1414

Douglas County News-Press
PO Box 1270, Castle Rock, CO 80104
Tel: (303) 688-3128

Aurora Sentinel
10730 E. Bethany Drive Suite 304 Aurora, CO 80014
Fax: (303) 750-7699
Tel: (303) 750-7699

Aspen Times
310 East Main Street Aspen, CO 81611
[email protected]
Fax: (970) 925-6240
Tel: (970) 925-3414


----------



## tpalka (Oct 31, 2003)

*Whoo-HOOO!*

My people tell me that SB 62 has been DEFEATED on the house floor today!

tom.


----------



## cstork (Oct 13, 2003)

Great! What was the final vote? 

But, I bet the sponsors of this bill will try again next year.


----------

