Laserfiche WebLink
After cozisidering flow options that would have no impact, low impact, or hi,gher impacts on <br />upstream development, the Board chose the "low impact" option because it warited to secure a <br />legitimate and u3eful water right without foreclosing upstream development, impairing Colorado <br />River compact df;velopment, or otherwise causing unacceptable impacts. It took that approach even <br />though the boatir..g community had asked for higher flow rates. (Vo1.1V,160:15 -1 61:9;182: 9-22). <br />To accommodatf; commercial and private boater's desire for higher flows, the Board requested <br />higher axnounts clwring the last two weeks of June and the first two weeks of July, when supplies <br />were ample. (Vol. IV, 182:23 - 193:5). The variable flows finally claimed by Uppe;r Gunnison are <br />as follows: <br /> <br />May 1- May June June July 1- July August August Sept. Sept. <br />15 16-31 1-15 16-30 15 16-31 1-15 16-31 1-15 16-30 <br />570 1190 1460 1500 1100 530 460 390 300 270 <br />(Vol. I at 18.) The; Board claimed no water from October through April, agreed not to call for water <br />at night, and agreed to refrain from calls that would unduly impact upstream development. (Id.; Vol. <br />N, 151:3 - 152:1? ). The maximum potential use, 156,916 acre-feet, represents 41 % of the average <br />flow in the Gunni:;on Rider from May to September. (Vol. V, 7:4-14). <br />The Upper Gunnison Board carefully balanced the desire for a legitimate water right that <br />would attract user? to the whitewater park, with the needs of other users of the river's water. It took <br />great care to be siire the recreational in-channel diversion would not foreclose development, or <br />unduly burden ex:isting upstream or downstream uses. It therefore caxefully investigated the <br />4