My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Rebuttal Statement of Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District; Case No. 4-02CW038
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
3001-4000
>
Rebuttal Statement of Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District; Case No. 4-02CW038
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 4:41:36 PM
Creation date
7/29/2009 12:07:39 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8230.2A1
Description
Applicant's Prehearing Statements
State
CO
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
4
Date
8/28/2002
Author
Cynthia F. Covell, Gilbert Y. Marchand, Jr.
Title
Rebuttal Statement of Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District; Case No. 4-02CW038
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Court Documents
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
balancing the recreation experience to be provided with other water development <br />considerations (as described in the District's prehearing statement), more than mere <br />speculation by others is necessary to challenge the amount of the appropriation. Neither <br />Natural Energy nor the CWCB Staff articulates any basis for their respective contentions <br />that one or more of the appropriated recreational flow rates may not be the minimuxn <br />required for a reasonable recreation experience. Astonishingly, the CWCB Staff asserts, <br />without any support whatsoever, that its "examination of the course at flow levels less <br />than 1500 cfs support a finding by the Board that 1500 cfs is not the minimum amount <br />necessary to provide for a reasonable recreation experience." <br />Times. CWCB Staff supports the District's limitation of its appropriation to the <br />months of May through September, but also requests a finding that the water rights <br />should not be granted for nighttime use. The District has confirmed that Gunnison <br />County, which will construct, own and operate the whitewater park, does not intend to <br />install lighting or to encourage nighttime use of the course. Since the County does not <br />intend to operate the whitewater park at night, the District is willing to agree to a <br />condition limiting operation of the water right to the hours 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. <br />2. Issues Related to the Findings the CWCB Must Make Regarding an RICD <br />Application. <br />a. Whether the adjudication and administration of the RICD would impair the <br />ability of Colorado to fizllv develop and place to consumptive beneficial use its Compact <br />Entitlements. <br />The River District, the CWCB Staff, and Natural Energy all contend that the <br />adjudication and administration of the RICD would impair Colorado's ability to fully <br />develop and place to consumptive beneficial use its compact entitlements. It is hyperbole <br />of the most extreme sort to conclude that Colorado's ability to fully develop and place to <br />benef cial use its millions of acre-feet of compact entitlements will impaired by this <br />single RICD. The Colorado River and Upper Colorado River Compacts entitle Colorado <br />to the consumptive use per annum of 51.75% of the nearly 7,500,000 acre-feet of annual <br />consumptive use allocated to the upper basin states. See, Colorado River Compact, <br />C.R.S. §§ 37-61-101 et seq. and §§ 37-62-102 et seq. Natural Energy and the CWCB <br />Staff seezn to base their position statements on a belief that the District's proposed RICD <br />application will impair "important future exchanges between Blue Mesa Reservoir and <br />points upstream of the RICD." Neither party identifies a single "important future <br />exchange" that is presently contemplated or likely to occur. Even if this allegation were <br />true, however, this is a far cry from impairing full development of the state's Colorado <br />River compact entitlement. <br />First, it must be noted that the District's recreational water right will be junior to <br />decreed senior water rights, and therefore cannot call them out. Natural Eriergy <br />disingenuously contends that its rights to fill and refill the Union Park Reservoir, as <br />decreed in Case No. 82CW340, would be impaired. The conditional decree that was <br />6
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.