Prehearing Statement of Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District and Exhibits A-F

Home Browse Search

2. Issues Related to the Findings the CWCB Must Make Regarding an RICD Application a. Whether the adjudication and administration of the RICD would impair the ability of Colorado to fully develop and place to consumptive beneficial use its Compact FntitlPmantc District's Position The ability of Colorado to fully develop and place to beneficial use its Colorado River Compact entitlements in the Gunnison River basin will not be impaired by the Gunnison Whitewater Park. The Park is located just west of the City of Gunnison, as shown on the map included in Exhibit A as Figure 1. It is located about 150 miles from the state line, just upstream of Blue Mesa Reservoir, a large Bureau of Reclamation project designed to capture water from the Gunnison River for a variety of uses. (Exhibit A; Testimony of James Slattery.) Because the whitewater course is nonconsumptive, it will not limit or impair development of water for consumptive beneficial uses downstream of the reach. (Id.) While the whitewater course could affect future upstream junior water rights and exchanges, development of such upstream junior water rights and exchanges will not be foreclosed. The water rights for the whitewater course are sought in amounts that will allow for the development of such upstream rights and exchanges, and will not call them out except in years where water supplies are significantly below average. Even then, because the District's recreational rights are sought for only five months of the year, upstream junior water rights and exchanges could operate during the remainder of the year. It is noteworthy that there is only one pending upstream junior water right application for an exchange through the reach of the whitewater course that would actually be affected by the District's water rights. The exchange sought in that application is less than 2 acre -feet per year. The District knows of no probable future upstream junior appropriations for direct diversion or storage, or probable future changes, transfers or exchanges of water through the reach of the Gunnison Whitewater Course. Were S.B. 216 to require denial of an RICD application if there would be any impairment whatsoever of the ability to put compact entitlements to consumptive beneficial use upstream of the RICD reach, an RICD application would never be granted. The whole point of appropriating a recreational in- channel diversion water right is to obtain a water right that has a place in the priority system, and an opportunity to place a call. If a water right cannot ever place a call, there is no point in having it adjudicated. A rational interpretation of S.B. 216 thus requires that an RICD water right be permitted to take its place in the priority system, and to place calls if necessary against junior water rights. Because the District considered the impact on upstream development and exchanges through the reach of the Gunnison Whitewater Course, it appropriated amounts that would provide a reasonable recreation experience while still being well below the average flows in the river. This properly mitigates the impact on development of upstream junior water rights and exchanges through the reach, so the CWCB should find that the adjudication and administration of the requested water rights will not impair 7