WSP12457 ‎(2)‎

• File Number: 8155.910.A.5
• Description: Pueblo RICD - CWCB Hearing - Staff Recommendations, Board Memos
• State: CO
• Basin: Arkansas
• Water Division: 2
• Date: 7/16/2002
• Author: CWCB
• Title: Staff Memo to CWCB Board RE: Pueblo's Recreational In-Channel Diverion ‎(RICD)‎
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Board Memo

periods; and 3) there is information in the record that the course could have been
designed with a width of 30 feet (rather than 40 feet) that would provide whitewater
features at 370 cfs (rather than 500 cfs). While Mr. Lacy indicates that if the structures
were narrowed then they would wash out at flows up to 2000 cfs (Gary Lacy Rebuttal
Statement, July 2,2002, page 3); that is not a consideration relevant to the Board's
recommendations. Gary Lacy also staks that a narrowing of the structure would prohibit
use by inflatable boats, rafts, and canoes. Gary Lacy Rebuttal Statement, July 2, 2002,
page 4. While this is the first time the Staff has seen any inference that the course might
be used by such watercraft, even l2-person whitewater rafts with extended oars would be
able to maneuver through a 30-foot wide opening. The limit of the summer flow amount
to the months of June and July would be based, in large part, on balancing the future
needs of Colorado against the need to provide for a reasonable recreational experience.
There is ample evidence that this amount during these two months will permit some
reasonable exchange potential upstream of the proposed course.

The Staff also recommends that there be a limit on when Pueblo can place a call for
this water right in order to prevent improper calls. Recreation is the beneficial use. The
structures do nothing more than facilitate this use, as with all other types of uses. Thus,
the Staff recommends that the Board limit Pueblo to calling only when someone is using
the course. The Staff recommends that the Applicant provide the State Engineer with
information that someone is using (or will be using) the water for recreational purposes
prior to placing a call for its water right. Also, Pueblo must specify a certain list of
agents who may call for this water right.

It is not reasonable to request a water right for recreational uses at all hours of the
night. Pueblo has not provided any evidence justifying a water right for nighttime hours,
Therefore, the Staff recommends that Pueblo be limited to uses between 6 a,m. and 10
p.m., and be limited to placing a call that would provide water at that time.

Because flows less than 100 cfs will not provide the recreational experience that
Pueblo is seeking, the Staff recommends that when Pueblo's call will not result in a flow
rate of 100 cfs, then Pueblo's call should be recognized as futile.

The Staff further recommends that Pueblo's request for fish, wildlife habitat, general
recreational use, and piscatorial uses be denied. Pueblo has failed to provide adequate
evidence that these control structures can be used to affect these purposes and that the
amounts of water requested are needed for these purposes. The statutes do not provide
for anyone, other than the CWCB, to hold water rights for instream flow purposes, but
since there is not adequate evidence, the issue of whether such uses are provided for
under SB 216 need not be addressed.

2. Whether the RICD diverts captures and controls water in its natural course or
location with physical control structures.

The Staff recommends a finding that these structures may capture, possess and
control the water if they are constructed as designed. It is important to note that the