Answer to Applicant's Closing Brief: Case No. 02CW38

Home Browse Search

water-based recreational opportunities with the ability of Colorado citizens to divert and store water under compact entitlements for more traditional consumptive use purposes such as municipal, industrial and agricultural uses." (May 7, 2001 hearing, p.l, attached hereto as Exhibit I). Co-Sponsor Spradley stated that: "It makes sense that attention be given to the impact of these recreational uses have on our state's future abilities to development and use water resources." (Exhibit C, p.3). The undisputed testimony was that the CWCB, unlike water courts, was uniquely positioned to look at "Colorado's compact entitlement" and "future uses" because water courts normally do not deal with such speculative issues. (Exhibit G, pp. 37-39). More importantly, the testimony at the hearing supports the finding that 250 c.f.s would allow Colorado to develop its compact entitlements. The Applicant admitted that there will be some impact on development of compact entitlements. (Exhibit F, Transcript, p. 54, Greg Peterson "And so what remains is that there is, and could be, some impact from the RICD on water development under the subardination agreement. But, I think I stated earlier, the Board deliberated about that and what that impact could be. And they were comfortable with having some sort of an impact...." see also p. 58). Additionally, the Applicant's expert Jim Slattery admitted that "[t]he RICD will only affect development in the stretch of the Gunnison River between Almont and the city of Gunnison." (Exhibit H, Expert Jim Slattery, p. 113). He also admitted that the RICD would affect much of the basin above it. (Exhibit H, Expert Jim Slattery, p. 117). e. Because the findings and recommendations are not in error (250 c.f.s. is the minimum stream flow necessary for a reasonable recreation experience that promotes maximum utilization and does not impair compact entitlements), they should be upheld. 17