My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSPC12705
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
1001-2000
>
WSPC12705
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 4:19:16 PM
Creation date
3/21/2008 5:06:09 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8230.400.30.F
Description
Durango RICD - Other Reports
State
CO
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
7
Date
9/7/2007
Author
McLaughlin Rincon, Ltd.
Title
Review of Submitted Information Related to the Durango RICD - with staff comments
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
19
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />r <br /> <br />I <br />" <br /> <br />Durango RICD <br /> <br />September 7, 2007 <br /> <br />Mr. Barry Spear, Esq. <br />Maynes, Bradford, Shipps & Sheftel LLP <br />835 E. Second Ave., Suite 123 <br />P.O. Box 2717 <br />Durango, CO 81302 <br /> <br />RE: Review of Submitted Information related to the Durango RICO <br /> <br />Dear Mr. Spear: <br /> <br />You have asked for a review of Recreation Engineering and Planning's (REP) design of the <br />Durango RICD as presented in various documents including: a memorandum dated January 12, <br />2007 from Scott Shipley to Ronni Sperling (Rebuttal); the REP Report on the Design, <br />Functionality, and Physical Characteristics of the Durango Boating Park as it Relates to the <br />RICD Application - September 8, 2006 (9/8/06 Report); and the REP Detail Design Report for <br />the Durango Boating Park, September 1, 2006 (Design Report). The review is with respect to <br />Senate Bill 216 and the ruling in Colorado Water Conservation Board v. Upper Gunnison River <br />Water Conservancy District., l.O~....~A~ (Co~2005) (S.upreme Court Decision). <br />, <br /> <br />A summary of my opinions and their bases follows: <br /> <br />Opinions and Basis For Opinions <br /> <br />Opinion #1. <br /> <br />The level of design and detail that the applicant has provided for review is unclear. <br /> <br />Basis of Opinion <br />On page 7 of the Rebuttal it states: "At present, the designfor the Boating Park is complete, has <br />all of the details required to construct the project in a robust and precise manner, and will <br />proceed according to best practice construction" <br /> <br />On page 28 of the 9/9/06 Report it states: The V-Structures that are specified have not been <br />specifically designed.......... At this preliminary stage of the design the Weir Equation can be <br />used to give a general indication of the shapes of the structures. <br /> <br />Legal Basis <br />SB 216: <br />SB 216: <br />SB 216: <br />SB 216: <br />SB 216: <br /> <br />Supreme Court Decision: <br /> <br />Appropriate Reach of the Stream Required for the Intended Use. <br />(10.3) Capture and Control <br />Access for Recreational In-Channel Use. <br />Section 2,37-92-103, (4) Beneficial Use <br />Section 2, 37-92-103,(10.3), Recreational In-channel Diversion <br />Means... <br />Minimum Flow Rate <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.