Laserfiche WebLink
control the flows of the Cnwnison River for kayaking, baating, <br />ra$ing, tubiug and.'snnl'ar recreational boating nses. <br />This application was the result of a cooperative effort between the <br />IJpper Cmmnison River Water Conseryancy District and Gurmison <br />Couniy to provide a water-based- recreationai amenity to the <br />commumuty, the college and the visitors to the commtmity. Now, the <br />application is seeldng varying flow rates for the months of Ma.y <br />.. through September each year. Theze wM not be any water right <br />requested or desired 'm the winter montbs. . <br />So the fl.ow rates vary in iwo-week intervals from #he 1 st through the <br />I5t` of May it's 570 cfs. I was hoging we could write this down somewhere so we co.iild keep it sbraight because there's a lot of <br />numbers. But Pm sorry, I didn't bring a.pad. The informa.tion. is in <br />the Applican#'s Pre-Hearing Statement. The second half of Wy, #he <br />16d` through 31" it's 1,190; the lst through the 15t` o€June - 1,460 <br />cfs; Jtma 16 through 30 -1,SOQ; Jiil.y 1 through 15 - 1,190; July 16 <br />tlhrough 31- 530; August 1 through 16 - 460; August 16 tbrough 31 <br />- 390; SeptembEr 1 threugh-I3 - 304-and -September 16 through 30 - <br />2'70. . <br />? . And our witaesses wffi testify that the reason they selected these <br />. two-week iuitervaLs, rather than a summer/winter flow, which is what <br />you heard about in the Pueblo case, is it mbre nearly reflects-the <br />hydrograph that's seen of the CYUnnison River. And it gives room to <br />. make stae that bpth this recreationat water nght and other uses can <br />be accommodateci. - : . - <br />Now, the Uppex Gvnnison District is talcing the position that <br />reereational water rights; like this whitewater conrse which had previously bftn granted by the Divigon }. Water Court in C'rreeley <br />and the Div.isiozi 5 Rtater Caurt in Glenwood Springs, may sttIl be " <br />available under the autbority of the Fort Collms v. City of Thornton <br />case. However, we are wanting to probeed undeF Senate BR1215 at <br />thi5 time, w2ile no# waiving anY rtghts we may have to la.ter argue . <br />that we could proceeti as well u,ndeer the sta.tutes.in the Fort ColIins <br />case as they existed prioz-to Senate Bill 216. Bu# we feel that the <br />evidence wiU $how the board that this is exactly the sort of water <br />right that Senate Bfl1216 contempla.tes and that the Upper Gunnison <br />Disfrict, who's engaged in exa4tlyf,his sort of analysis and <br />evaluation that Senate BM 216 demands. Now you'll reaiember't.hat ttre Golden case; which gave rise to <br />Senate Bill 216, was a recreational water right for a whitewater <br />caurse tbat was based on peak gauged flows. So wbatever the gauge <br />Colorado Water Canservation Board <br />5eptember 10, 2002 Hearing Transcript <br />Page 7