My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Opening Brief
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
3001-4000
>
Opening Brief
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 4:41:42 PM
Creation date
7/29/2009 3:05:54 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
7/26/2004
Author
Ken Salazar, Susan Schneider
Title
Opening Brief
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.
/
34
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
The Applicant's expert, Gary Lacy, who designed and oversaw construction of the <br />Gunnison course, admitted repeatedly that: "The Whitewater Park will attract many boaters at <br />250 c.f.s. and above," including experienced kayakers. (Exhibit B; v. V, p. 177; v. VII, pp. 221- <br />222). The Applicant's Manager provided an initial recommendation of minimum stream flows <br />of 250 to 500 c.f.s. (Upper Gunnison Water Conservancy District Manager; State's Exhibit 15a, <br />attached hereto as Exhibit N). The State's expert testified a minimum flow for a reasonable <br />recreational experience for an average user was in the range of 250-350. (v. IV, pp. 233- <br />234). He testified that many courses, including world-class, paid-admission and Olympic <br />courses, operate at much lower flows. (v. IV, pp. 230-232, State's Exhibit 19a, p. 5, attached <br />hereto as Exhibit O). <br />As stated earlier, co-sponsor Representative Spradley stated, "for legislative history <br />purposes," that under SB 216, the "minimum" flow "would mean that the applicant could <br />potentially obtain a right to the minimum amount of water necessary to float a kayak...... <br />(Exhibit J, Rep. Spradley, p. 1). Under this reasoning, because the evidence showed that 250 <br />c.£s will attract expert kayakers and the Legislature only intended an "amount of water necessary <br />to float a kayak," the Water Court erred in rejecting the presumptively valid CWCB Findings and <br />Recommendations that 250 c.f.s. was a reasonable recreation experience. <br />This Court should uphold the presumptively valid CWCB determination that 250 c.f.s <br />was the minimum stream flow necessary for a reasonable recreation experience. <br />22
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.