WSPC58

• 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

v~Li3 Q

b. The Board finds that the flow rates sought rafting and canoeing are
not the minimum stream flows for these activities and therefore
they do not promote maximum utilization.
c. The Board finds that 500 cfs provides a suitable flow for rafting
and canoeing.
d. The Board finds that when flows drop below 500 cfs, the primary
area of concern for canoers and rafters are areas downstream of the
RICD, not the area of the RICD itself.
Vlll. The frequency and duration of the requested amounts of water for 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. Thus, the Board finds that the RICD proposed decree for
rafting and canoeing, on balance, do not promote maximum utilization.
IX. The economic effect of the proposed RICD does not serve as a factual
basis for the Board to determine that the RICD should be denied or
granted under this factor.

3. With regard to freestyle kayaking the Board finds as follows:

a. The Board must consider whether the RICD appropriation is for an
appropriate reach of stream for the intended use. The Board makes the
finding that the RICD appropriation is for an appropriate reach of stream for
freestyle kayaking. The Board makes the following findings about this RICD
for kayaking:

1. The Board finds that the nature and type of recreational activity for which
the RICD is sought (freestyle kayaking) is appropriate;
11. a. The Board finds that RICD reach is an appropriate reach for freestyle
kayaking because the length of the proposed RICD is appropriate for
this activity.
b. The Board finds that the RICD reach is an appropriate reach for
freestyle kayaking because while freestyle kayaking has occurred for
many years on the Yampa River, the RICD structures built in the
Yampa River tend to attract freestyle kayakers.
c. The Board finds that the RICD reach is an appropriate reach for
kayaking because freestyle kayakers use the structures.
iii. 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 ofthis RICD, for this case.

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 for freestyle kayaking may affect the timing,
location, and manner in which the State of Colorado will be able to maximize