Home

A bill restricting recreational water rights died on the state House floor Tuesday, much to the relief of city officials.

The bill, which was sponsored by Sen. Jack Taylor and was being opposed by the city of Steamboat Springs, failed on a second reading by a slim margin.

The city budgeted $10,000 to lobby against the bill. It also has spent more than $200,000 on its application and fight for a recreational in-channel diversion on the Yampa River. But the bill's defeat just means one obstacle is out of the city's way; it doesn't mean the city's fight is over.

"The defeat of this bill ultimately doesn't mean we get the RICD, and that really should have been council's (focus) all along. I am glad the distraction is set aside and, mentally, we can gear up for the presentation in front of the water court," City Manager Paul Hughes said.

As first proposed, the bill would have severely limited the city's request for a RICD. As the bill passed through the Senate, amendments were made that excluded Steamboat's RICD request. RICDs are water rights that ensure a minimum stream flow in waterways for recreational uses such as kayaking.

The bill that appeared before the House on Tuesday would limit any municipality from filing for a future RICD for more than 350 cubic feet per second and would require the structure controlling the water to have two sides and a bottom.

In December 2003, the city applied for a RICD with a maximum diversion of 1,700 cfs during June, the peak of kayaking season. The city's RICD application is scheduled to be heard this summer in District 6 Water Court.

Taylor, R-Steamboat Springs, said discussions are under way to present another bill later this session. That bill most likely would originate in the House and come to the Senate, Taylor said.

With the bill making it out of the Senate in February and passing the House Committee on Agriculture, Livestock and Natural Resources last week, Taylor said he was optimistic that it would pass in the House.

He thinks the language from a 2001 Senate bill on RICDs and a recent issuing from the Colorado Supreme Court points to a need for more clarity from the Legislature.

"The water community, with very few exceptions, supports this bill," Taylor said. "I think that it was a tragic thing that happened in the House today."

Local water attorney Tom Sharp helped Taylor write the bill and has argued that RICDs could gridlock the state's water supply.

"The discussions on the strategic long-term consequences on the RICD have been extensive, and I am personally sorry that the bill was not able to pass," Sharp said.

Taylor and City Water Attorney Glenn Porzak said there was much lobbying occurring between when the House committee passed the bill March 23 and Tuesday's vote.

The threat of another potential bill leaves the city worrying it could have to expend its resources again in another fight. Hughes worried the city might have to spend a great deal of energy, time and money "every time anyone comes up with a special-interest bill."

Instead, Hughes would prefer there be a statewide conversation about water and what the state's needs are, and how RICDs fit into that vision.

If new RICD legislation comes out next session, the city would feel slightly more comfortable than it did this time around. This summer, the city's RICD filing will be heard before the District 6 Water Court, which will decide how much water the city should get. But even that decision likely could be appealed to the Supreme Court.

"I think there will be further attacks on the RICD," City Council President Paul Strong said.