Laserfiche WebLink
700 cfs less than the CWCB's own flow exceedance criteria; (c) contrary to the CWCB Staff s <br />misrepresentation, the "minimum flow" amounts listed in "Table 2" are not the minimum <br />amounts for a reasonable recreation experience, but the minimum flow needed to allow an activity <br />to occur without injnry to the biological resources iri the river; (d) the "recommended flows" <br />which formed the basis of the City's RICD are the minimum amounts necessary to achieve the <br />reasonable recreation experience intended by the City Council; (e) the 350 cfs cap is a one size fits <br />all approach that cannot be applied to the unique characteristics of the Yampa River at the Boating <br />Park; (f) the analysis by Bo Shelby on which the 350 cfs cap is purportedly based was completely <br />discredited by the Water Court in the Golden case; (g) as highlighted by Judge Patrick in the <br />Gunnison decision, Mr. McLaughlin's endorsement of the 350 cfs cap is inconsistent with the <br />flow rates for many of the courses he has designed, including the Ocoee Course in Tennessee <br />designed for 1200-1600 cfs that is not mentioned in his report. (See Gunnison, Exh. S-15 at 16.) <br />The "reasonable recreation experience" required for a RICD as noted at section 37-92- <br />103(10.3) necessarily depends upon the intended recreational use. The CWCB's own rules <br />recognize this fact by defining "reasonable recreation experience" in the context of the "specific <br />recreational activity for which the water right is being sought." Rule 4.0., 2 C.C.R. 408-3 (2003) <br />(emphasis added). The CWCB also admitted this fact in the "Motion to Clarify the State's <br />Position" in the Gunnison case submitted here as Exh. 5-29, where it finally conceded that the <br />appropriator's intent was relevant to this inquiry. See also Gunnison at 17, 19 ("This Court is <br />reluctant to intervene to usurp the Applicant's determination of the size and scope of a RICD, <br />subject to the traditional criteria of speculation and waste. Contrary to the foregoing, /the Court <br />will not second guess the Applicant in its requested amount."). Accordingly, the Board must base <br />its decision on this point on the unique facts of the Yampa River and the City's goals in <br />developing its Boating Park, and not by reference to the arbitrary 350 cfs cap or the completely <br />discredited work by Bo Shelby analyzing a different river with much lower flow rates from which <br />that cap number was derived. <br />The flow rates claimed by the City are the "the minimum stream flow ... for a reasonable <br />recreational experience in and on the water" when the City's purposes in constructing the <br />structures are considered. In support of its claimed flow rates, the City directs the Board to the <br />following evidence: <br />(a) Resolution No. 2003-74 adopted by the Steamboat Springs City Council on <br />December 16, 2003, authorizing the appropriation of water for the Steamboat <br />Springs Boating Park and the filing of the application at issue. (Exh. S-2.) <br />(b) Reports by Mr. Lacy demonstrating that the claimed flows are the minimum <br />amounts to achieve the intended reasonable recreation experience. (Exh. S-4, S- <br />25.) <br />(c) The City Staff reports explaining that the claimed amounts are the minimum <br />amount to achieve the reasonable recreation experience intended. (Exh. S-6, 5-27.) <br />Ph0751;2 -12-