My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Applicant's Closing Brief: Case No. 02CW038
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
2001-3000
>
Applicant's Closing Brief: Case No. 02CW038
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 4:41:33 PM
Creation date
7/28/2009 11:54:47 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8230.2B3
Description
Pleadings
State
CO
Basin
South Platte
Water Division
4
Date
10/22/2003
Author
Cynthia F. Covell
Title
Applicant's Closing Brief: Case No. 02CW038
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Court Documents
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
116
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
Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District <br />02CW038 <br />19b at page 2, Opinion 2).16 The structures for the Gunnison Whitewater Park are similar to those <br />found by the water courts to capture and control water ixi the Golden, Eagle River and Breckenridge <br />cases. (Lacy Tr. at p.26,11.17 - p. 271.4); see the decrees in Golden, Eagle River and Breckenridge <br />cases attached to the District's trial brief.) <br />2. Beneficial Use. The Gunnison Whitewater Park is partially constructed at this time. <br />Even in its incomplete state, it has been put to use by boaters. Dr. Mark Gibson has used the course <br />to teach beginning kayaking courses through the Outdoor Recreation Department at Western State <br />College. Mark Schumacher of Three Rivers Resorts, which rents and sells water craft, including <br />lcayalcs, and arranges kayak lessons and outings, observed that the course has increased both rentals <br />and lessons, and helped his business. (Schumacher Tr. at p.12, 11. 15-24.) Dr. Gibson, Mr. <br />16 There was considerable testimony at trial regarding Mr. Lacy's estimate of maximum <br />and minimum flows. Mr. Lacy testified that these calculations were made for preliminary planning <br />purposes only, and had proved in his experience with other courses to be useful predictors of <br />actual flows controlled by course structures. (Lacy Tr. at 69,1.14 - p.721.22.) Mr. McLaughlin <br />testified that he would have done the calculations using a different equation, which would have <br />predicted, from the design drawings, a low flow of 140 cfs and a high flow of 2,370 cfs. <br />(McLaughlin Tr. at 82, 11. 5-20.) Since the flow rates chosen by the District are within the <br />structures' design parameters by either calculation, and the fmal construction will deternune the <br />actual amounts controlled by the structures, the experts' differences of opinion are not important <br />to this application. Likewise, there was considerable testimony by Mr. McLaughlin at the very <br />end of the trial about leakage at Structures 5 and 6, but no contention that these could not be <br />repaired or rebuilt if necessary, or that the structures, when repaired or rebuilt, would not control <br />the water. Mr. DeVore testified that any needed repairs or even replacements would be made. <br />-36-
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.