WSP12606 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

'. II II . . . - 5 - With regard to the appropriate reach, Rule 7.b.iv., 2 CCR 408-3 (2003) provides that the CWCB must consider whether "the RICD will affect flooding, flood control, or the one-hundred year flood elevations." (See also CWCB Staffs RICD Policy and Technical Criteria Manual dated November 21,2003 (Section 2)). The applicant di~ not supply adequate engineering or technical information to the CWCB in order for an appropriate 10r reasonable review to take place for the subject recreational features. Prior to any water rights adj~dication in this case, the Applicant should provide the CWCB with the following information iQ. order for a comprehensive review and assessment to take place: 1) Final design drawings, using standard engineering practice, for the boating. course fi~atures, 2) Appropriately scaled plan and profile drawings based on accurate base mapping, topographic information, and/or detailed field surveys, 3) Hydraulic models for pre- and post-kayak course conditions, performed J.d sealed by a Colorado registered professional engineer, demonstrating that the RICD structures do not adversely impact any floodways or laO-year floodplains, and 4) Documentation demons~rating that the structures have been properly permitted by local, state, and federal agencies having; jurisdiction in this matter (permits include, but are not limited to, local floodplain development permits and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 404 permits). See also the letter report of Bill Taggart. I I Because it has not been adequately demonstrated by the Applicant that the proposed RICD will not adversely affect! flooding and the 100-year flood elevations on the reach, the Applicant has not met its burden to show that the RICD is located within the appropriate reach, and thus, the application should be dehied. i I I I 3. Whether there is adequate access for the RIeD. I The Applicant h$ failed to provide documentation that there is adequate access :D:>r the RICD. In particular, the RICD segment for three structures in Buena Vista are not owned by the County, and the County has not demdnstrated that it has either leases or contracts to purchase or lease the land to give the County adequate: access to the RICD reach. See also the letter report of Bill Taggart Thus, the Staff recommends that the Board find that there is not adequate access for the RICD. I 4. Whether the exercis~ of the RICn would cause material injury to existing ISF wat,er rights. The Staff recolllIl,1ends that the Board find that the exercise of the RICD will not eause material injury to existing ISF water rights. There are no instream flow water rights on this segment of the Arkansas River. I 5. Whether the adjudication and administration of the RICn would promote-maximum utilization of the waters of the State. i I I The Gunnison decision placed great importance on this factor. The Supreme Court stated that the duty to examine ~CD applications with regard to this factor is "consistent with the Board's enabling statute, under which the CWCB has the duty 'to promote the conservation of tht:: waters of the state of Colorado in qrder to secure the greatest utilization of such waters.' To this end" the CWCB is to promote the limplementation of 'sound measures to enhance water use efficiency in order to serve all the water needs ofthe state.'" I I Flood Ptotection · Water Project Planning and Finance. Stream and Lake Protection i Water Supply Protection. Conservation Planning