My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Answer Brief of the Colorado River Water Conservancy District
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
2001-3000
>
Answer Brief of the Colorado River Water Conservancy District
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 4:41:39 PM
Creation date
7/29/2009 1:45:37 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8230.2F
Description
Colorado Supreme Court Appeal
State
CO
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
4
Date
1/1/3000
Author
Peter C. Fleming, Kristin M. Gillespie
Title
Answer Brief of the Colorado River Water Conservancy District
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.
/
25
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
<br />Supreme Court, State of Colorado (Appeal from District Court, Water Division No. 4, Case No. 02CW38) <br />Case No. 04SA44: Colorado Water Conservation Board v. Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District <br />Answer Brief ofthe Colorado River Water Conservation District <br />The intended purpose of the appropriator is therefore a key factor in determining the <br />appropriate flow rate of an RICD, just as the intent of the appropriator is important for determining <br />the measure of any other type of water right. Sante Fe Trail v. Simpson, supra at 53, 55. <br />2. The minimum flow for a reasonable recreation experience can vary <br />substantially, based on the type of recreational use sought by the appropriator <br />who will put the water to beneficial use. <br />The water court is in the best position to determine if the intended purposes of a claimed <br />RICD are reasonable, and whether the amount of water claimed is the minimum flow rate to serve <br />the intended purposes. As with any other type of water right, the appropriate flow rate must be <br />viewed in light of the amount necessary to achieve the intended purposes of the appropriation. The <br />flow rate far the Gunnison RICD will necessarily be different than the flow rate for an RICD on a <br />different stream, appropriated by a different entity. The issue is inherently fact specific and will vary <br />depending on a number of factors, including: (1) the specific purposes sought to be achieved by the <br />entity appropriating the RICD; (2) the natural characteristics of the stream channel in which the <br />artificial control structures will be placed; and (3) the natural hydrograph of the particular stream. <br />Even though the appropriate flow rate may vary from one RICD to another, and may even vary <br />within the same RICD, the flow rate decreed to an RICD must not exceed the minimum flow for the <br />specific recreational activity sought by the appropriator. <br />in the current case, the Upper Gunnison District appropriated a range of flows in the shape <br />of the natural hydrograph (but well below the peak flows of the natural hydrograph), in order to <br />attract expert boaters throughout the runoff season. The evidence at trial showed that low flows in <br />Page 13
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.