WSP12457 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

General Assembly has specifically recognized that these types of structures can capture, possess, and control water if they are appropriated in a manner consistent with SB 216. Similar structures for which water rights are sought prior to the passage of SB 216 could not be granted water rights because they could not capture, possess, and control the water for recreational purposes under the law that existed at the time. 3. Whether the adjudication and administration of the Pueblo RICD would impair the ability of Colorado to fully develop and place to consumptive Beneficial Use its Compact Entitlements. Pursuant to Article IV.D of the Arkansas River Compact and SB 216, the Board must consider the RICD's effect on Colorado's ability to develop its compact entitlements. There must be a balance between the needs to operate future exchanges and permit future upstream water development and the desire of Pueblo to provide for a recreational experience. Pursuant to these considerations, the Staff recommends a year-round water right for 100 cfs. This provides adequate exchange potential and also provides Pueblo the minimum flow necessary for reasonable recreational oppOltunities. The Staff also recommends that the Water Court include language in the decree to prevent the use of this decree by federal agencies to impose bypass flows requirements on water rights senior to Pueblo's RICD water right. 4. \Vhether the Pueblo RICD appropriation is for an appropriate reach of stream for the intended use and whether there is access to the Pueblo RICD. The Staff recommends a finding that a reach 2/3's of a mile is excessive and appears to be too much like an instream flow. The Staff recommends that the water right be limited to each of the eight individual points where the structures are located above Union Avenue, rather than the entire stretch between the nine structures (which includes the Moffat Street structure). This will not have any practical effect on Pueblo's claim, but as a policy matter, there is no need to tie up an entire reach when distinct points will accomplish the same purpose. The Board may want to consider that there are reaches within close proximity to this reach of the Arkansas River that would not have the same effect on many of the water users of the Arkansas River as alleged, For example, some parties have suggested that just upstream of Pueblo Reservoir and just downstream of Fountain Creek may be more appropriate reaches. The Staff recommends a finding that the RICD will not affect flooding, flood control, or the one hundred year flood elevations, except that this right should be curtailed when flood control operations dictate. Although the Moffat Street gage may continue to be an appropriate gage to administer this water right, the Staff recommends that the decree include language, that the Applicant will install such measuring devices or gages as the Division Engineer may require. 5. Whether there is adequate access for the RICD. The Staff recommends that the Board find that there is adequate access for the RICD.