WSP12457 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Staff Report and Recommendation One threshold issue raised by several objectors was whether Pueblo is a municipality, pursuant to section 37-92-103, eR.S. (2001), and whether Pueblo's charter prevents Pueblo from holding water rights. Because the CWCB is not required to make this specific finding, the Staff recommends that the Board not make a finding or recommendation regarding this issue, but rather allow the Water Court to determine that Issue. 1. Whether the amount of water sought for a RICD represents the minimum stream flow necessary to provide a reasonable recreation experience in or on the water. (Rule 7) The Staff questions whether Pueblo and its designer understand the requirement to limit the water right to the "minimum stream flow" necessary to provide for a reasonable recreational experience. For example, the Course designer states "it is my opinion that water flows of up to 2,000 cfs is what draws the biggest events and the most boaters from many areas, and that the boating experience and the operation of the Whitewater Park are best at that flow rate. .., In fact, higher flows make the Whitewater Park the recreational attraction it was designed to be." Lacy Report, December 24, 2001, page 1. If the Pueblo Whitewater course was designed to operate best at the higher flows, then the design is flawed. Senate Bil1216 (SB 216") only permits an entity to obtain a water right for the minimum stream flow necessary to provide a reasonable recreational experience. In its Prehearing Statement, Staff provided the Board with six options for determining the amount of water necessary for a reasonable recreation experience. The Staff recommends that the Board find that the minimum amount of water necessary to provide for a reasonable recreational experience is 100 cfs. Pueblo argues that at 100 cfs, "the Whitewater Park will mainly be used for beginners and novices to practice their skills on moving water." Lacy Report, December 24, 2001, page 3. The Staff argues that use by beginners and novices can be a reasonable type of recreational experience. In addition, since Pueblo has stated that experts would use the Course at lOO cfs, lOO cfs may be higher than the minimum flow necessary to provide for a reasonable recreation experience. Pueblo Prehearing Statement, page 5. The Staff recommends that Pueblo be granted 100 cfs year-round. While it is questionable whether winter boating is a reasonable recreation experience, because the water can only be called if the water is actually being used, this concern can be addressed through administration. The Board may want to consider the other options listed in the Staff's prehearing statement, which is incorporated into this report by reference. In particular, if the Board desires to provide a summer flow amount and a different winter flow amount to reflect water availability and use, the Board may want to consider recommending a flow amount of 370 cfs in the months of June and July. The amount of 370 cfs would be reduced from 500 cfs because: 1) the course must be designed for the minimum amount necessary to provide for a reasonable recreational experience; 2) there is information that exchanges would not be limited if the RICD were limited to flows of 300 cfs during certain time