Laserfiche WebLink
Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District <br />02CW038 <br />recommendation regarding maximumutilization if such adoptionwould preclude a determination that <br />the flow rates sought by the District also promote maximum utilization. <br />The District's proposed RICD does not impair compacts. <br />The State argues that the court should "uphold" the CWCB's "presumptively valid finding" <br />that, at 250 cfs, the recreational in-channel diversion for the Gunnison Whitewater Park will allow <br />Colorado to fully develop and put to beneficial use its compact entitlements. (Answer at 17.) The <br />only evidence cited in support of this assertion is (1) Gary Lacy's statement that flows at this rate <br />"will attract many boaters" and are "sufficient to amact experienced whitewater kayakers"(id. at 12) <br />and (2) the CWCB's determination that "if a kayak course, at a given flow, would be sufficient to <br />attract many experienced boaters at that flow, then that would be an appropriate standard for a <br />minimumstream flow for a reasonable recreation experience (id. citing Ted Kowalski's trial testimony <br />transcript at 73-74). <br />The CWCB did not conduct an analysis of whether flows at this rate would impair Colorado's <br />ability to develop its compact entitlement. Rather, it just determined the "minimum stream flow for <br />a reasonable recreation experience" and then - with no analysis - concluded that adjudication of such <br />an amount would not cause impaurnent. <br />-23-