Answer Brief of Appellee Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District

Home Browse Search

i • to contro12000 cfs. (Vol. V, $6:23 - 87:1). As flows increase to that amount, actual use of the whitewater park increases. (Vol. V, 87:12-15; 136:16-19; 147:20 - 148:24; 154:18-23). The flow rate recommended by the CWCB would not provide any water for the intended uses at higher flows. (Vol. V, 122:16 - 124:11; 144:22 - 145:12; 136:12 - 16; 155:22 - 153:6; 161:15 - 162:15). Following preliminary design work, the County approached the Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District about acquiring water rights for the course. (Vol. IV, 47:7-23). Upper Gunnison had experience developing and protecting water rights, including recreational water rights. See, e.g., In ReApplications for WaterRights of Upper Gunnison RiveY Water ConservancyDistrict, 838 P.2d 840 (Colo. 1992). The District was formed in 1959 to protect and defend the water resources and to supplement water supplies in the Upper Gunnison River Basin. (See map at Vol. LX, Ex. UG-4, attached as Appendix 2.) The District protects and promotes the interests of all water users within the basin, primarily for agricultural, domestic, and recreational purposes. (Vol. N, 87:16-23). The Board considered the proposed design and understood that the course would function best at higher flows, up to 2000 cfs. (Vol. IV, 100:18 - 101:10). The Board then considered what flow rates would accomplish the County's purposes without causing undue impact on other water uses. (Vol. N, 101:24 - 103:1). Over a period of months and several public meetings, the Board thoroughly analyzed how much water was available for appropriation at different times of the irrigation/boating season and how much water could be claimed for the whitewater course without unduly impairing anticipated upstream development, including that addressed in a prior arrangement known as "the Subordin.ation Agreement." (Vol. IV, 150:17 - 153:14; 155:4 - 157:19). 3