Prehearing Statement of the Town of Silverton

Home Browse Search

• Level Two Flows, for use of water features created by the structures for recreational kayaking and related activities Holida Flow cfs) Memorial Day 600; Conditional Inde endence Day 600; Conditional Labor Day 600; Conditional The claimed flows are for between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. for both Level One and Level Two Flows. Level Two Flows are claimed for up to four days per weekend, depending on national holidays, and being no longer than Friday to Monday of each holiday. Silverthorne has determined that these flow rates are the minimum amounts necessary to provide a reasonable recreational experience during each of the above time periods, taking into consideration other current and potential demands on the water supply. The Town of Silverthorne has filed an application for this recreational in-channel diversion ("RICD") with the District Court, Water Division 5 in Case No. 04CW217. II. FACTUAL AND LEGAL ISSUES • l. Whether the adjudication and administration of the recreational in-channel diversion would impair the ability of Colorado to fully develop and place to consumptive beneficial use its compact entitlements; 2. The appropriate reach of stream required for the intended use; 3. Whether there is access for recreational in-channel use; 4. Whether exercise of the recreational in-channel diversion would cause material injury to instream flow water rights; and 5. Whether adjudication and administration of the recreational in-channel diversion would promote maximum utilization of waters of the state. Silverthorne's position on these issues is discussed in the attached Written Testimony and is summarized as follows: 1. The adjudication and administration of the recreational in-channel diversion in this case will not impair the ability of Colorado to fully develop and place to consumptive beneficial use its compact entitlements. Silverthorne will demonstrate there is no impact on compact entitlements through the written testimony of Dr. Leo Eisel and Mr. Mark Richards. Among other reasons, Dr. Eisel and • Mr. Richards demonstrate there is not an adverse impact on compact entitlement because: 2