Applicant's Closing Reply Brief - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Upper Gunni,son River Water Consei-vancy District 02CW038 The State argues that the flow rate of 250 cfs for the Guxuiison Whitewater Park should be adopted by thf, court as the "minimum flow for a reasonable recreation experience," ui part because the District has not shown that 250 cfs is not the minimum flow for a reasonable recreation experience. (Answer at 12.) However, as previously stated, the CWCB is not authorized to determine the "minimum flow for a reasonable recreation experience." Any such cietermination, being beyond its statutory authority, is not to be given deference. Simpson v. Bijou Irr•. Co., 69 P.3d 50, 70-71 (Colo. 2003.) It was the District's obligation to prove its application, and :it has done so. The St.ate next claims that the "minimum flow for a reasonable recreation expe:rience" is 250 cfs in this case, because the whitewater park "will attract experienced boaters" at that flow rate, according to t-ie District's expert Gary Lacy." The CWCB mischaracterizes Mr. Lacy's statements. Mr. Lacy read his earlier report, as set forth in Exhibit P to the State's Answer, which stated that whi.le the desi;;n of the whitewater park would allow the creation ofwhitewater featiues at a i`low of 250 cfs suffici.-nt to attract experienced whitewater kayakers, the course is designed to also function well at flows u.p to 2000 cfs as such flows have historically occurred within the reach o:Pthe Gunnison River where the whitewater park is proposed. (Lacy Tr. at 118, State Exhibt P). It is also conect " On,-, of the State's exhibits referred to in support of this proposition, Exhibit J, is an incomplete ve:rsion of the District's prehearing statemerit prepared in connection with the CWCB hearing in thi:> matter. It was never admitted into evidence in this case, and should not be considered by this court. Moreover, it does not relate to the statement it purports to support. -16-