My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Rebuttal Statement of Trout Unlimited
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
3001-4000
>
Rebuttal Statement of Trout Unlimited
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 4:42:03 PM
Creation date
8/10/2009 1:43:15 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8230.21A2
Description
CWCB Hearing: Objectors' Prehearing Statements
State
CO
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
6
Date
5/17/2004
Author
Andrew Peternell, Trout Unlimited
Title
Rebuttal Statement of Trout Unlimited
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.
/
6
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
<br />COLORADO WATER CONSERVATION BOARD <br />1313 Sherman Street, Room 721 <br />Denver, Colorado 80203 <br />CONCER1vING THE APPLICATION FOR WATER <br />RIGHTS OF THE CITY OF STEAMBOAT <br />SPRINGS IN THE YAMPA RIVER IN ROUTT <br />COUNTY <br />Andrew Peternell <br />Trout Unlimited <br />Administrative Proceeding <br />1320 Pearl Street, Suite 320 <br />BQulder, Colorado 80302 Case Number: 6-2003CW86 <br />Phone: (303) 440-2937 <br />Fax: (303) 440-7933 <br />Email: d eternell tu.cr <br />REBUTTAL STATEMENT OF TROUT UNLIMITED <br />Pursuant to the Prehearing Order issued by the Hearing Coordinator and Rule 13.d of the <br />Rules Concerning Recreational In-Channel Diversions ("RICD Rules"), Trout Unlimited ("TU") <br />hereby submits its Rebuttal Statement to the Colorado Water Conservation Board ("CWCB"). <br />1. DEFINITION OF AN RICD <br />Colorado Revised Statutes § 37-92-103(10.3) defines recreational in-channel diversion <br />("RICD") as "the minimum stream flow as it is diverted, captured, controlled, and placed to <br />beneficial use between specific points defined by physical control structures pursuant to an <br />application filed by a county, municipality, city and county, water district, water and sanitation <br />district, water conservation district, or water conservancy district for a reasonable recreation <br />experience in and on the water." There is disagreement amongst the parties as to whether the <br />application filed by the City of Steamboat Springs (the "ApplicanY") satisfies this definition in <br />several respects. <br />A. Divert, Capture and Control <br />Gary Lacy, the course designer, has determined that the structures constituting the <br />whitewater park ("Steamboat Course") will divert, capture, and control water at the requested flow <br />rates. See Report Prepared by Gary Lacy, dated January 2004 ("Lacy Report"). Nevertheless, the <br />CWCB staff (the "Staff ') argues that the Applicant has failed to demonstrate diversion, capture and <br />control. Staff Prehearing Statement at 5. <br />The Staff overlooks the fact that in four previous cases Colorado courts have found that <br />structures similar to those to be employed at the Steamboat Course and designed by Gary Lacy can <br />control water at a variety of flows. See Final Decree, Application of City of Golden, Water <br />Division 1, Case No. 98CW448 (2001); Final Decree, Concerning the Application for Water Rights <br />of the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District, Water Division 5, Case No. OOCW259 (2002);
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.