WSPC58 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

, " ,.) ,', .'... '..j 0 .1. v j ~:... Staffs Revised Recommended Findings of Fact and Recommendations for the RICD Application by the City of Steamboat Springs, Case No. 6-03CW86, September 16, 2005 Findings of Fact 1. With regard to tubing the Board finds as follows: a. The Board must consider whether the RICD appropnatlOn is for an appropriate reach of stream for the intended use. The Board makes the finding that the RICD appropriation is not for an appropriate reach of stream for tubing. The Board makes the following findings about this RICD: i. The Board finds that the nature and type of recreational activity for which the RICD is sought (tubing) is inappropriate. Il. a. The Board finds that RICD reach is not an appropriate reach for tubing because the length of the proposed RICD is inappropriate for this activity. b. The Board finds that the RICD reach is not an appropriate reach for tubing because tubing has occurred for many years, without regard to the RICD structures built in the Yampa River. c. The Board finds that the RICD reach is not an appropriate reach for tubing because a lot of tubers get stuck or capsize at the play holes; d. The Board finds that the RICD reach is not an appropriate reach for tubing because a very small percentage of tubers cycle through the structures. Ill. The Board finds that there are adequate stream gages to measure the RICD; IV. The Board finds that how the RICD structures affect flooding, flood control, or the one-hundred year flood elevations should not be used as a basis to recommend denial or granting of this RICD, for this case, at this time. b. The Board must consider whether the adjudication and administration of the RICD would promote maximum utilization of the waters of the State. The Board finds that the RICD may affect the timing, location, and manner in which the State of Colorado will be able to maximize beneficial use of Colorado's water resources, but with the mitigating terms and conditions, on balance, the RICD for the flow amounts claimed for tubing, and given the trigger language agreed to by the Applicant (that the Applicant will not call for the RICD water right when a call will not produce at least 85 cfs), would promote maximum utilization of the waters of the State. The Board makes the following findings about this RICD: i. The Board finds that there are probable future upstream junior appropriations for direct diversion or storage. Examples are specifically described in the pre-hearing statements filed by the Staff of the CWCB, and the Upper Yampa River Water Conservancy District, the Town of Oak Creek, and the other parties to this case. The RICD may affect the timing, location and manner in which the State of Colorado will be able to