Laserfiche WebLink
? <br />The State Engineers and the CWCB both filed statements of opposition to this <br />application on May 28, 2002. Pursuant to section 37-92-102(5), C.R.S. (2002), the <br />Applicant hand delivered a copy of its application to the CWCB on April 10, 2002. On <br />May 20, 2002, the Applicant requested a hearing before the CWCB. The Applicant and <br />the CWCB jointly moved to extend the deadline for the CWCB to report its fmdings and <br />recommendation until October 11, 2002, and the Water Court granted this motion. <br />On June 11, 2002, the CWCB hearing coordinator issued an order noticing a pre- <br />hearing conference and authorizing the filing of pre-hearing statements and rebuttal <br />statements by the Applicant, the CWCB, and the other parties. The Applicant and the <br />parties submitted pre-hearing statements and rebuttal statements that tota.led hundreds of <br />pages. The Applicant's chief expert, Gary Lacy, who designed and oversaw construction <br />of the Gunnison course, stated in the Applicant's pre-hearing statement: "The Whitewater <br />Park will attract many boaters at 250 c.f.s. and above." Gary Lacy reiterated this <br />sta.tement in the Applicant's rebuttal statement: "[w]hile the design for the Whitewater <br />Park will allow for the creation of whitewater features at a flow of 250 c.f.s. sufficient to <br />attract experienced Whitewater kayakers, the course is designed to also function well at a <br />range of flows up to 2000 c.f.s...." (p. 2). <br />On September 3, 2001, the CWCB Staff recommended to the Board that it <br />recommend the issuance of a water rights decree for the RICD for amounts not more than <br />250 c.f.s. for May, August, and September, and not more than 500 c.f.s. for June and <br />July. Staff's recommendation was based, in part, on statements made by Gary Lacy <br />(referenced above). The CWCB held a hearing on September 10, 2001 that lasted over 10 <br />4