Laserfiche WebLink
d ? <br />x/• 4 ? !;?, <br />Before the Colorado Water Conservation <br />Board <br />Application for Water Rights of the Upper Gunnison <br />River Water Conservancy District, <br />In the Gunnison River <br />Tn Gunnison Count <br /> Case Number: <br /> 4-02CW038 <br />REBUTTAL STATEMENT OF THE UPPER GUNNISON RIVER WATER <br />CONSERVANCY DISTRICT <br />Applicant, Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District ("District"), <br />submits the following rebuttal statement in response to the Prehearing Statements filed by <br />certain other parties in this matter, in accordance with the Notice of Prehearing <br />Conference and Deadlines dated June 11, 2002, as amended by the Order Granting Staff's: <br />Motion for Extension of Time to File Prehearing Statement of the Colorado Water <br />Conservation Board, dated August 13, 2002, and as further amended by the Hearing <br />Coordinator's email extending the rebuttal statement deadlines for the District and Trout <br />Unlimited to August 28, 2002. <br />I. Background to District's Rebuttal Statement <br />Prehearing statements were filed in this matter by Natural Energy Resource <br />Company ("Natural Energy"), Gerald and Toni Bullock as representatives of a group of <br />interested homeowners ("Bullocks"), Trout Unlimited ("TU"), the Colorado River Water <br />Conservation District ("River District") and the staff of the Colorado Water Conservation <br />Board ("CWCB Staff"). The District has reached stipulations with Virgil & Lee Spann <br />Ranches and Robert and Geraldine Howaxd, and with the City of Gunnison, thereby <br />limiting their further participation in this proceeding. No prehearing statement was filed <br />by the Uncompahgre Valley Water Users Association or the State and Division <br />Engineers, although they are parties to the water court case. The District's rebuttal <br />statement responds to the prehearing statements of the other parties. <br />II. Factual and Legal Issues <br />A. Undisputed Facts. Following review of the other parties' prehearing <br />statements, the District believes that the following facts identified in the District's initial <br />prehearing statement remain undisputed. <br />1. The District, a water conservancy district, is an entity designated by <br />S.B. 216 as entitled to appropriate a recreational in-channel diversion (RICD). No party <br />has disputed tIiis fact. <br />1