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_-'" '-Ii '3 Fl <br />\.10,1 ( <br /> <br />finds that the RICD proposed decree for freestyle kayaking, on <br />balance, does not promote maximum utilization. <br />b. The Board finds that the flow rates sought for freestyle kayaking <br />(1400 cfs, 1000 cfs, and 650 cfs) are not the minimum stream <br />flows for a quality freestyle kayaking experience, and therefore <br />they do not promote maximum utilization. <br />c. The Board finds that the lower flow rates sought for freestyle <br />kayaking (in particular the 250 cfs flow rate) are not appropriate <br />for the freestyle kayaking experience. <br />d. The Board finds that 500 cfs provides a quality experience for <br />freestyle kayaking, including world-class international kayaking <br />opportunities. <br />Vlll. 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. Thus, the Board finds that the RICD proposed decree for <br />kayaking, on balance, does not promote maximum utilization. <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 />Recommendations <br /> <br />The Board recommends that the Water Court deny the Applicant a water rights decree. <br /> <br />1. The Board recommends that the Water Court deny a water right for tubing <br />because this is not an appropriate reach for this recreational experience. <br /> <br />2. The Board recommends that the Water Court deny a water right for rafting and <br />canoeing because this is not an appropriate reach for these recreational experiences and <br />because the flow amounts sought do not promote maximum utilization because the flow <br />amounts sought are for more than the minimum stream flow for a reasonable recreation <br />expenence. <br /> <br />3. The Board recommends that the Water Court deny a water right for kayaking <br />because the flow amounts sought do not promote maximum utilization because the flow <br />amounts sought are for more than the minimum stream flow for a reasonable recreation <br />expenence. <br /> <br />4. The Board recommends that the Water Court deny water rights for kayaking, <br />rafting, and canoeing, because the Applicant will not put the water to beneficial use as <br />defined by the General Assembly as the minimum stream flow for a reasonable recreation <br />expenence. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.