My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSPC58
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
20000-20849
>
WSPC58
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 4:15:38 PM
Creation date
4/22/2007 10:13:09 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
9/16/2005
Author
CWCB
Title
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
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.
/
8
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 />',I:; 3c " <br />Ud,"L . ,j <br /> <br />July 15 through August 15. Given these additional terms and conditions, <br />the Board finds that the RICD proposed decree for tubing, on balance, <br />promotes maximum utilization; <br />V111. The frequency and duration of the requested amounts of water for the <br />RICD may affect the timing, location and manner in which the State of <br />Colorado will be able to maximize beneficial use of Colorado's water <br />resources. However, the RICD proposed decree: 1) seeks a flow rate for <br />95-100 cfs; 2) operates only from 8 am until 8 pm; and, 3) includes <br />triggers such that the Applicant will not impose a call if it will produce <br />less than 85 cfs; and, 4) only seeks a water right for tubing from July 15 <br />through August 15. Given these additional terms and conditions, the <br />Board finds that the RICD proposed decree for tubing, on balance, <br />promotes maximum utilization; and, <br />IX. The economic effect of the proposed RICD does not serve as a factual <br />basis for the Board to determine that the RICD should be denied or <br />granted under this factor. <br /> <br />2. With regard to rafting and canoeing the Board finds as follows: <br /> <br />a. The Board must consider whether the RICD appropriation is for an <br />appropriate reach of stream for the intended use. The Board makes the <br />finding that the RICD appropriation is not for an appropriate reach of stream <br />for rafting and canoeing. The Board makes the following findings about this <br />RICD: <br /> <br />1. The Board finds that the nature and type of recreational activity for which <br />the RICD is sought (rafting and canoeing) and is not appropriate; <br />11. a. The Board finds that RICD reach is not an appropriate reach for rafting <br />and canoeing because the length of the proposed RICD is <br />inappropriate for these activities. <br />b. The Board finds that the RICD reach is not an appropriate reach for <br />rafting and canoeing because rafting and canoeing has occurred for <br />many years, without regard to the RICD structures built in the Yampa <br />River. <br />c. The Board finds that the RICD reach is not an appropriate reach for <br />rafting and canoeing because virtually no rafters or canoers cycle <br />through the structures. <br />iii. The Board finds that there are adequate stream gages to measure the <br />RICD; <br />IV. The Board finds that how the RICD structures affect flooding, flood <br />control, or the one-hundred year flood elevations should not be used as a <br />basis to recommend denial or granting of this RICD, for this case at this <br />time. <br /> <br />b. The Board must consider whether the adjudication and administration of <br />the RICD would promote maximum utilization of the waters of the State. <br />The Board finds that the RICD for rafting and canoeing may affect the <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.