Rebuttal Statement of Upper Yampa Water Conservancy District

Home Browse Search

impair the ability of the District to develop these resources by hindering future exchanges, transfers, changes in water rights, and/or the development of future storage rights on the Yampa River upstream of the Steamboat Sprin-s Boating Park ("Boating Park"), the location of "C Hole" and "D Hole", or Structure Nos. 1 and 2("Structures"). Over the past several years, the District has been researching several potential small reservoir sites in an effort to develop operatin- strategies that best meet the lona, term water supply and economic needs of the area. The ability to secure reliable sources of water for these sites will be greatly impacted if the City's RICD is granted since junior diversion rights for municipal purposes w be subject to call as much as half the time during late summer and fall. Without a firm yield, the District's ability to obtain financing will be detrimentally impacted. 3. The RICD appropriation is not for an appropriate reach of the stream. The District supports the CWCB finding that the reach of the stream is inappropriate due to the Structures' effect on elevating the water surface, thus exacerbating flood events. The District's own review of the flood plain impacts support the findings of the CWCB report to this effect. 4. Tubing is not an activity dependent on the diversion, control and captaire elements required by the RICD. The Structures have no real effect with respect to the recreational ztse reqaiested for Tubing and any amounts requested for this atse macst be denied. Since Structures Nos. 1 and 2 are superfluous and inelevant to the tubing experience, they do not constitute appropriate diversions for this particular recreational use. Moreover, tubing becomes a dangerous activity with respect to the play waves created by the Structures. Several instances have occurred where tubers have had to be rescued at the "C" Hole. Consequently, the uses of tubing and kayaking are at odds with each other since the structures required for one recreational use, kayaking, work to detract and even present a risk to participants of the other activity, i.e., tubing. Therefore, Tubing should not be considered as one of the beneficial uses, as applied for by the Applicant. 5. The amoatnt of water sought for the RICD is not the minimunt amount necessary to provide a reasonable recreational experience and the water right shoicld only be available when there is significant, actatal beneficial tcse. Observations conducted by the District show many days of non-use for kayaking and no days of use for the other requested uses of tubing, rafting, canoeing, etc. The appropriation must only be available to the City when there are actual boaters, for all uses. Otherwise, the City's call is futile. -2-