Laserfiche WebLink
Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District <br />02CW038 <br />and would prevent development of recreational in-channel diversions virtually everywhere. Rules of <br />statutory construction militate against this definition, as it is presumed an entire statute is intended <br />to be effective, and a just and reasonable result is intended. C.R.S. § 2-4-201(1). <br />Mr. Seaholm's concept of impaument goes far beyond the concept of impairment that a <br />CWCB work group used in considering water availability for its own instream flows in the Gunnison <br />River.10 At trial, the CWCB itself disavowed Mr. Seaholm's opinion, asserting that the CWCB had <br />concluded in its Findings and Recommendations that there would be no compact impaument if the <br />District's claimed water right were reduced to 250 cfs, and made subject to specified conditions, <br />although nothing in the Findings and Recommendations sets forth a factual basis for the CWCB's <br />conclusion in this regard. Counsel for the CWCB opined in her closing argument that a flow rate <br />of 500 cfs for the whitewater course would not impair compact development. It is thus impossible <br />to ascertain how the CWCB deterniines compact impaument. In fact, the District agrees that there <br />will be no compact impairnient at either 250 cfs or 500 cfs. <br />10 See CWCB Work Group on Endangered Fish Species 1995 Final Report (Exhibit UG <br />203), fmding there could be at least 1.5 million acre-feet of instream flow appropriations while <br />still allowing full development opportunities for Colorado's remaining beneficial consumptive use <br />compact entitlements in the Gunnison River Basin. Mr. Seaholm, a member of the work group, <br />testified that the standard used by the work group to calculate the amount of water available was <br />"compact impairment." <br />-20-