Laserfiche WebLink
Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District <br />02CW038 <br />completed, and revisions may be necessary. City of Thornton v. Bijou b-r. Co., 926 P.2d at 43-44. <br />(An appropriator need not resolve every contingency relating to con.ipletion of a water project in <br />order to obtain a determination that the proj ect "can and will" be completed with diligence and within <br />a reasonable time.) <br />Conclusion <br />There are really no disputed issues in this case concerning the District's satisfaction of the <br />traditional elements for obtaining a conditional water right; rather, the debate has been about SB 216 <br />issues. As shown herein, none of the concerns that gave rise to SB 216 are implicated by this <br />application. The District is an appropriate entity to apply for a recreational in-channel water right. <br />It did its best to weigh the concerns ofvarious different constituencies before determining how much <br />water to claim. The amounts claimed are significantly less than the average flows at the Gunnison <br />gage. They vary with the natural fluctuation of the Gunnison River, allowing enough flows to attract <br />a variety ofusers at each different time ofthe season, without commanding too much ofthe available <br />flow at any particular time. Neither futLue water development nor compact development is impaired. <br />Maximum utiiization is promoted. <br />In short, if SB 216 means anything, it means that the recreational in-channel water rights <br />claimed by the District are reasonable and appropriate. The District has met the requirements of SB <br />216 and the application should be granted. <br />-38-