WSP12724 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Consent Agenda Item 2a Case No. 2-04CW129; Chaffee County Application Summary This is an application for a Recreational In-Channel Diversion on the Arkansas River for a year- round water right for a maximum requested flow rate of 1800 cfs, near Buena Vista and Salida (see the attached map). The Board filed a statement of opposition for the following reasons: 1. Section 37-92-102(3), c.R.S. provides: ".. .no other person or entity [other than the CWCB] shall be granted a decree adjudicating a right to water or interests in water for instream flows in a stream channel between specific points, ..., for any purpose whatsoever." The Applicant may not obtain a decree that violates this statute. 2. The Applicant must be held to strict proof as to its claim that it is diverting the water claimed in its application. 3. The Applicant must be held to strict proof that it is seeking a water right that is a legally cognizable beneficial use of that water. 4. The CWCB has many water rights in the Arkansas River drainage basin to preserve the natural environment. The CWCB's rights may be adversely affected by the granting of the application. 5. The Applicant must be held to strict proof that all of the statutory elements of a RICD are fulfilled including but not limited to the following: i) the flow rates must be limited to a minimum stream flow for a reasonable recreational experience; ii) the adjudication and administration of this water right will not impair the ability of Colorado to fully develop and place to consumptive beneficial use its compact entitlements; iii) the RICD reach is an appropriate reach of stream required for the intended use; iv) there is access for the RICD use; v) the exercise ofthe RICD will not cause material injury to instream flow water rights appropriated pursuant to Section 37-92-102(3) and (4); vi) the RICD promotes maximum utilization; and, vii) the RICD comports with the other factors as set forth in the CWCB's rules and regulations. Other Objectors The other objectors in this case are: Arkansas River Outfitters Association; the City of Aurora; the Pueblo Board of Water Works; Castle Pines North Metropolitan District; Colorado Springs Utilities; the Lake County Board of County Commissioners; the Lower Arkansas Valley Water Conservancy District; the Colorado Department of Natural Resources; the Colorado Department of Parks and Outdoor Recreation; the City of Sa lid a; Pueblo West Metropolitan District; the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District; Trout Unlimited; the Upper Arkansas Water Conservancy District; the State Engineer and Division Engineer for Water Division 2, and Colorado Division of Wildlife. C:\Documents and Settings\trk\My Documents\consentagenda2a_mem.doc