Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />- 8 - <br /> <br />I <br />The Staff further recommends that the Board recommend that the water court deny the <br />Applicant's request for general recreational uses because it is too vague. It is clear from the <br />Applicant's rebuttal stat~ment that the Applicant's inclusion of general recreation purposes is an <br />effort to protect flows f(k fishing and other water based activities. The Applicant cannot use the <br />RICD to violate Sectionj 37-92-102(3), referenced above. The Applicant must narrowly tailor the <br />recreational opportunities sought to the minimum flow for each recreational experience sought. <br />Here, the Applicant has iclearly not provided any such analysis, because none has been done. <br />Without this analysis, tHe Staff recommends that the Board recommend that the water court deny the <br />application. I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br />Flood Protection. Water Project Planning and Finance. Stream and Lake Protection <br /> <br />Water Supply Protection. Conservation Planning <br />