Laserfiche WebLink
?. <br />The Bullocks have questioned whether the whitewater course can be properly <br />administered in the reach, but no other party has expressed this concern. Significantly, <br />the Division Engineer, who will be responsible for administering the District's water <br />right, has not expressed any administrative concern about this reach or the water right <br />generally. As is the case with all water rights, the Division Engineer may require the <br />District to install such measuring devices as the he requires for proper administration. <br />c. Whether there is access for recreational in-channel use. <br />All parties agree that access is available for recreational in-channel use. <br />d. Whether Exercise of the Recreational In-channel Diversion Would Cause <br />Material IniM to Existing Instream Flow Water Rights. <br />The CWCB Staff agrees that the CWCB there are no instream flow water rights <br />that would be impacted by the whitewater course, so exercise of the District's water rights <br />would not cause material injury to exisring instream flow water rights. <br />The District's Board applauds the CWCB's willingness to investigate the West <br />Branch at the request of the Bullocks to determine if it is an appropriate reach for an <br />instream flow application. The District supports the Bullocks' request, and is willing to <br />agree that, upon decree of an instream flow in the West Branch for any flow rate up to 15 <br />cfs, the District will agree that the RICD will not call out such instream flow. <br />e. Whether Adjudication and Administration of the Recreational In-channel <br />Diversion Would Promote Maximum Utilization of the Waters of the State. <br />As discussed above the water rights sought for the Gurulison Whitewater Park will <br />not prevent compact development upstream of the reach, as the CWCB Staff, Natural <br />Energy and the River District have speculated, so maximum utilization of the waters of <br />the state for consumptive purposes is not prevented. In fact, however, maximum <br />utilization does not require consumption of water. A nonconsumptive use, such as a <br />recreational in-channel water right, allows an additional use of water traveling through <br />the reach on its way to a downstream destination. <br />CWCB Staff argues that the RICD is fully consumptive as to all future upstream <br />users, and therefore cannot possibly promote maximum utilization of the waters of the <br />state, regaxdless of any downstream benefits provided. This surprising assertion is <br />bolstered by the equally astonishing statement that "... the other parties have provided <br />some information about probable future substantial changes, exchanges or transfers <br />through the reach." In fact, not one party has identified a single probable future <br />substantial change, exchange or transfer through the reach. Natural Energy has expressed <br />interest in some sort of high-altitude storage facility, but has produced no plans, no <br />designs, no water rights applications, and no identification of known end users for such a <br />project. This is no more than an idea. The River District has not identified any probable <br />10