Laserfiche WebLink
experience" under C.R.S. § 37-92-103(10.3) because the flow rates will not accommodate a wide <br />range of recreational uses. Id. Even if it were true that the application fails to accommodate a <br />variety of uses, C.R.S. § 37-92-103(10.3) does not require that a"reasonable recreation experience" <br />include a wide range of recreational uses. Rule 4.0 of the RICD Rules defines a"reasonable <br />recreation experience" as "an experience in and on the water that would allow individuals with <br />suitable skills and abilities relating to the specific recreational activity for which the water right is <br />being sought to partake in that activity." Clearly, under both the statute and the rule, a reasonable <br />recreation experience could include a single activity. <br />Despite the evidence provided by the Applicant, the Town of Oak Creek ("Oak Creek") and <br />the Town of Yampa ("Yampa") blankly contend that the proposed water right is excessive for a <br />reasonable recreational experience. Yampa Statement of Opposition at 2; Oak Creek Statement of <br />Opposition at 2. These unsubstantiated contentions should be afforded little weight relative to the <br />evidence provided by the Applicant, in the form of Mr. Lacy's opinion, that the flow rates it seeks <br />are the minimum necessary for a reasonable recreation experience. <br />II. STATUTORY RICD FACTORS: MAXIMUM UTILIZATION OF THE WATERS <br />OF THE STATE <br />Under C.R.S. § 37-92-102(6)(b), the CWCB is required to make findings of fact with <br />respect to a number of factors. TU is primarily concerned with the disagreement of the parties <br />concerning the maximum utilization of the water of the state under C.R.S. § 97-92-102(6)(b)(V). <br />The Staff, Yampa, Oak Creek, Morrison Creek, and Upper Yampa argue that the RICD right <br />could impede maximum utilization of the waters of the state. Staff Prehearing Statement at 7-8; <br />Yampa Statement of Opposition at 2; Oak Creek Statement of Opposition at 2; Morrison Creek <br />Statement of Opposition at 4; Upper Yampa Statement of Opposition at 4-5. Specifically, the Staff <br />speculates that there are probable future upstream appropriations, as well as future changes, <br />transfers, and exchanges from points of diversion downstream of the RICD to points upstream that <br />would be impacted by the RICD. Staff Prehearing Statement at 8. Though the proposed RICD <br />right might impact future upstream uses of water, consideration of future uses in awarding a water <br />right is inappropriate. Protection of senior appropriators is the cornerstone of Colorado's prior <br />appropriation system under which priority is given to those who first manifest intent and ability to <br />make a proposed diversion. In Colorado River Water Conservation District v. Vidler Tiinnel Water <br />Co., 594 P.2d 566, 568 (Colo. 1979), the Colorado Supreme Court stated that, "our constitution and <br />statutes ... give no one the right to preempt the development potential of water for the anticipated <br />future use of others..." Neither Senate Bi1101-216 nor the RICD Rules have altered this aspect of <br />Colorado law. <br />The Colorado Supreme Court has stated that maximum utilization involves "maximizing the <br />use of Colorado's limited water supply for as many decreed uses as possible consistent with <br />meeting the state's interstate delivery obligations under United States Supreme Court equitable <br />apportiorunent decrees and congressionally approved interstate compacts." Empire Lodge <br />Homeowners'Ass'n v. Moyer, 39 P.3d 1139, 1150 (Colo. 2001). Additionally, the Court has held <br />that: <br />4