Laserfiche WebLink
ti Y <br />l <br />t f ? ? <br />2. The RICD is located approximately 150 miles upstream of the state <br />line. No party has disputed this fact. <br />3. The reach of the RICD extends approximately one-quarter mile within <br />the channel of the Gunnison River. No party has disputed this fact. <br />4. There are no existing instream flow water rights in the proposed RICD <br />reach, or any affected downstream reach of the Gunnison River. No party has disputed <br />this fact. <br />5. The nature of the activities for which the RICD is sought is boating, <br />rafting, tubing, kayaking, and other recreational activities, including fishing. No party has <br />disputed this fact. Indeed, TU specifically notes that "fishing" is a beneficial in-channel <br />recreational use of water within the ambit of S.B. 216. <br />6. The RICD can be adequately measured and administered through the <br />proposed reach. The Bullocks have questioned whether the RICD can be adequately <br />measured and administered inasmuch as the currently-existing measuring device is <br />located above the West Branch of the Gunnison River. However, the Bullocks have <br />produced no evidence and identified no witnesses who will testify that the RICD cannot <br />be adequately measured and administered. The District notes that this issue was not <br />raised by any other party to this proceeding, including the State and Division Engineers, <br />who are parties to the water court case, and who are charged with the measurement and <br />administration of the water right. <br />7. The RICD will not affect flooding, flood control or the one-hundred <br />year flood elevations. An attachment to the Bullocks' prehearing statement questions <br />whether the control structures for the whitewater park will impact flooding or flood <br />control. However, they identify no witnesses and present no evidence to demonstrate that <br />there will be such an impact to flooding or flood control. CWCB Staff likewise <br />identifies no witnesses or evidence that will demonstrate that there will be an impact to <br />flooding or flood control, but asserts that such issues can be addressed with adequate <br />terms and conditions in a decree. The District submits that in the absence of any <br />ident'ified evidence demonstrating that the RICD will impact flooding or flood control, <br />the CWCB must accept as undisputed that fact that the RICD will not do so, and therefore <br />no special terms or conditions are required. <br />8. A reasonable demand exists for the recreational activities for which the <br />RICD is sought. No party has disputed this fact. <br />B. Mixed Factual and Legal Issues: 1 <br />1 As stated in the District's prehearing statement, and as the other parties apparently agree, rnany of the <br />points on which the CWCB is required to make fmdings and a recommendation to the water court pursuant <br />to S.B. 216 require interpretation and application of s±atutory and case law, not merely factual fmdings. <br />2