Laserfiche WebLink
Upper Gunnison River Water Consei-vancy District <br />02CW038 <br />Board of County Comm'rs of County ofArapahoe v. U.S., 891 P.2d 952, 959-962 (Colo. 1995); see <br />also City of ThoYnton v. Bijou Irr. Co., 926 P.2d l, 42 (Colo. 1996); City of Fort Collins, 830 P.2d <br />at 924-5. Jim Slattery's reports and testimony provide unopposed evidence that water is available <br />in the reach for this water right in the amounts and during the times requested. See Exhibits UG-7and <br />UG-10. John DeVore testified that the project is economically feasible, and any required permits <br />have been or could be obtained. <br />1. Diversion. The "diversion" requirement for a recreational in-channel water right <br />has been established by the District by showing that the amounts ofwater claimed will be controlled <br />in the water's natural course in the Gunnison River during the claimed time periods by means of the <br />u-shaped dam structures and offset water deflector devices constructed or proposed for construction <br />in the Gunnison whitewater course. C.R.S. § 37-92-103(7); City of Fort Collins, 830 P.2d at 929- <br />932 (Colo. 1992); Exhibits UG-26 and 27. <br />According to Gary Lacy, who designed the Gunnison Whitewater Parlc and is overseeing its <br />construction (which is not yet complete), the flows of the river are controlled in both the low flow <br />charuzel (up to 250 cfs) and the high flow channel (up to 2000 cfs as designed.) (Lacy Tr. at 63, 11. <br />23-25; p. 64, 11. 18-25; p. 65, ll. 7-1 l.) Rick McLaughlin, an expert witness for the CWCB agreed <br />that the course as desib ed and constructed to date captures and controls water in both the low flow <br />channel and the high flow channel. (McLaughlin Tr. p. 110, ll. 5-11, p. 111 U. 14-19; Exhibit State- <br />-35-