Laserfiche WebLink
Recreational In-channel Diversion Applications in the South Platte Basin <br />The City of Fort Collins filed for a RICD right in 1986 for flows of 55 cfs. This flow was <br />to be used for recreational, piscatorial and wildlife, in conjunction with two diversion <br />dams constructed in the channel of the Cache La Poudre River. One of the dams was to <br />return the Poudre River's course back to its historic channel near a proposed nature center <br />development. The other dam included a boat chute for recreational use and a fish ladder <br />for piscatorial preservation. Opposition for this RICD application in Fort Collins was <br />received from the CWCB, the Colorado State Engineer, and other parties mainly due in <br />part that the city was possibly applying for minimum stream flow rights contrary to law. <br />The Colorado Supreme Court ruled in favor of Fort Collins because the two dams either <br />remove water from its natural path or location, or control water within its natural course <br />or location. Therefore, a diversion of water had taken place that was sufficient to support <br />Fort Collin's claim to a valid appropriation. <br />Littleton, Golden, Breckenridge and Aspen also requested water rights after the Fort <br />Collins application. In addition, one set of private individuals also requested rights for a <br />kayak and boating course. The City of Golden filed for the most publicized of these <br />RICDs in late 1998 to claim flows of up to 1,000 cfs in some months for its whitewater <br />kayak course in Clear Creek The application was initially opposed by various parties <br />including upstream water users, the CWCB, and the Colorado State Engineer due to the <br />characterization that it claimed all of the available flow in Clear Creek at certain times. <br />After a trial, the Water Court issued a decree giving absolute or conditional water rights <br />in the amount requested to the City of Golden for the kayak course. The Court ruled that <br />(1) the "dam structures and flow deflector control devices" which comprise the course <br />operated to "divert" water under Fort Collins; and (2) that "Golden's constitutional right <br />to appropriate a new water right ... may not be denied or limited based upon the public <br />trust doctrine, or similar policy restraints purportedly rooted in concern for the quantities <br />that should be left for future water users." <br />An appeal to the decree granted by the Water Court was given to the Colorado Supreme <br />Court by the Colorado State Engineer and the CWCB. The appeal remains pending in <br />Case No. O 1 SA252, with the appellants' opening brief due by February 7, 2002. <br />(http://www.westernwaterlaw. com/ABAarticle. htm) <br />Additionally, in December 2001, the City of Longmont filed for a RICD water right on <br />the St. Vrain River. The applicants proposed decree seeks 350 cfs as a maximum flow <br />rate for this RICD water right. Currently, this application is still pending <br />(http://cwcb. state. co.us/agendas/May_04/ 17.pdf). <br />