My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Case No. 02CW38; Exhibits A and B
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
2001-3000
>
Case No. 02CW38; Exhibits A and B
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 4:41:38 PM
Creation date
7/29/2009 12:46:47 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8230.2B6
Description
Exhibits
State
CO
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
4
Date
12/26/2003
Author
J. Steven Patrick, Gunnison River Water Conservancy District
Title
Case No. 02CW38; Exhibits A and B
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.
/
23
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
Gunnison Airport. At this location, which is also near the Gunnison <br />County water treatment facility, the County owns much of the land west of <br />the river. <br />5. Gunnison County approached the Applicant, the Upper Gunnison River <br />Water Conservancy District and ultimately reached an agreement whereby <br />Applicant would take the lead in obtaining a water right and the Board of <br />County Commissioners would take the lead on construction of the <br />whitewater park. This ultimately culminated in an intergovernmental <br />agreement, Applicant Exhibit 1 dated March 26, 2002. <br />6. Applicant filed its application on March 31, 2002. <br />7. Ms. Curry, manager of Applicant, made a recommendation to the Board <br />on the minimum flow. Specifically she suggested that it be structured to <br />be subordinate to the Aspinall Wilson Subordination Agreement <br />(discussed infra under the Gunnison River). The Board decided that they <br />preferred to go in another direction, that is, with a meaningful water right <br />not to be subordinated up front. Over the course of the summer of 2002 <br />the Board held various public meetings and obtained input from the <br />Board's consulting engineer, Mr. Slattery, to evaluate what flow was <br />reasonable and what potential impact such flow rates might have. <br />8. Mr. Slattery's recommendation broke the boating season, May through <br />September, down by semi-monthly averages. Based on the pubfic input, <br />the Board concluded that higher flows were necessary to satisfy the needs <br />4
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.