My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSPC55
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
20000-20849
>
WSPC55
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 4:15:38 PM
Creation date
4/22/2007 10:13:04 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8230.400.21
Description
Colorado River Litigation - State, Division 4 Water Court Cases - Steamboat RICD
State
CO
Basin
Yampa/White
Water Division
6
Date
5/18/2004
Author
Unknown
Title
Report to Glenn Porzak regarding Steamboat Springs Boating Park - Response to comments by Richard E McLaughlin and Tom Browning
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
21
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />. <br /> <br />,,;, '"'I r, <br />"> ~ J b <br /> <br />I. Assertion: The absence of pre-construction design analysis and technical data <br />prevent aconc/usion that the structures work to divert and control the Yampa River to <br />meet Steamboat's intended purposes. (McLauglin at Topics #'s 1, 5, 6, 7; Browning at <br />Paragraph #'s 1, 8). <br /> <br />Rebuttal: The structures divert and control the flow of the Yampa River through <br />"critical depth" at all of the claimed flow rates to meet the City's intended purposes. <br /> <br />Mr. McLaughlin asserts on the first page of his letter that "lack of design, analysis, and <br />as-built information precludes basic hydraulic analysis, evaluation, or review needed to <br />evaluate" the RICD structures at issue. (McLaughlin at "Topic #1.) The fact is, Mr. <br />McLaughlin observed that the structures control the flow of the river on the day of his <br />site visit. He admits that fact at "Topic #6" of his report, and then at "Topic #7" admits <br />there was "critical depth" at the structures that same day. <br /> <br />I note that Mr. McLaughlin uses a different approach to the design of whitewater courses <br />than I do. His opinion repeatedly states that neither physical nor computer modeling was <br />undertaken as part of the design process for the Boating Park, and he implies that the <br />design is somehow inadequate or "inefficient" because of this. r disagree with this <br />opinion. My experience in designing over 30 whitewater boating parks has shown that <br />the process I typically employ, involving design, construction, observation and <br />modification if necessary, is the most cost-effective and most reliable way to construct a <br />working boating park within a natural river channel. <br /> <br />Mr. McLaughlin's boating park design experience is largely limited to the planning and <br />modeling of out of channel artificial kayak courses. Mr. McLaughlin designed the <br />expensive in-channel Whitewater Park on the Ocoee River for the 1996 Olympic Games <br />which has minimum flows for recreational use of 1100 cfs, yet he fails to even mention <br />this designed flow rate or that river in his report. The Ocoee and Mr. McLaughlin's <br />artificial courses are typically far more expensive to construct and operate than the <br />Boating Park. For this reason, considerable pre-construction modeling may be warranted <br />in order to save later construction costs and operation expenses. If this is what Mr. <br />McLaughlin means by "efficiency" in course design, this concept is not really <br /> <br />3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.