Laserfiche WebLink
recreational inchannel diversion would promote maximum utilization of waters of the <br /> state as referenced in [C.R.S. § 37 -92 -102 (1)(a)]." While the language of C.R.S. § 37- <br /> 92 -102 (1)(a) does not contain the term "maximum utilization," the section affirms the <br /> presumption of tributary water, and the concept of integration of the appropriation, use, <br /> and administration of tributary groundwater in such a way as to maximize the beneficial <br /> use of all of the waters of this state. In my opinion, imported water could help reduce the <br /> mining of groundwater presently occurring along the Front Range of Colorado thereby <br /> helping to maximize the utilization of the waters of this state. Furthermore, the higher in <br /> the watershed transmountain or transbasin diversions can occur, generally the less cost <br /> associated with development of the supply. <br /> 4.6.1 Whether there are any probabic future upstream junior appropriations for direct <br /> diversion or storage. Some upstream development junior to the claimed water right <br /> should be assumed, such as under the Subordination Agreement, this development may <br /> occur, in part, through the use of existing conditional water rights senior to the claimed <br /> water right. However, in this case there is an opportunity to construct a transmountain <br /> diversion, for which water rights have not yet been filed. In my opinion, this opportunity <br /> is worth preserving. <br /> 4.6.2 Whether there are any probable future changes, transfers, or exchanges of water <br /> rights from points of diversion downstream of the reach affected by the RICD to points <br /> upstream of or in the reach affected by the RICD. There are potential upstream transfers <br /> that might occur of portions of the marketable pool in the Aspinall Unit. Exchanges may <br /> occur under the Subordination Agreement for the Aspinall Unit or through other means <br /> as already discussed. The proposed RICD water right could have an effect in some years <br /> on the upstream use of water under junior water rights pursuant to the Subordination <br /> Agreement, and such has been acknowledged by the applican'ts experts. <br /> 4.6.3 Whether existing federal policies, regulations and laws affect or will be affected <br /> by the RECD. Generally, I am not aware of any federal policies, regulations or laws <br /> that affect or will be affected by the proposed RICD water right, other than any <br /> necessary federal permits that may be required for construction of the whitewater <br /> course or any other project. However, there may be some floodplain issues associated <br /> with the construction of the whitewater course. While I am aware of floodplain rules <br /> and regulations in general, I have had minimal involvement with floodplain activities <br /> at the CWCB since 1983. and anticipate that staff from our Floodplain Management <br /> Section would address this issue. <br /> 4.6.4 Whether a reasonable means is to be utilized to use, divert, capture and control <br /> the water for a RICD so as to minimize its call upon the river and avoid waste. The <br /> structures that form the whitewater course certainly determine how water will pass <br /> through that section of the river between certain ranges of flow. However, whether that <br /> provides a reasonable recreational experience and is accomplished without waste is <br /> subject to debate and will be addressed by other State experts. • <br /> • <br /> 15 of 17 <br />