My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Prehearing Statement of Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District and Exhibits A-F
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
3001-4000
>
Prehearing Statement of Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District and Exhibits A-F
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/14/2010 1:47:31 PM
Creation date
6/9/2010 9:02:36 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
Description
Gunnison RICD
State
CO
Basin
Gunnison
Water Division
4
Date
7/19/2002
Author
Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District, Cynthia F. Covell
Title
Prehearing Statement of Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District and Exhibits A-F
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Court Documents
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
65
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
The balancing concept in S.B. 216 also supports the appropriateness of the reach. <br />There are no existing decreed exchanges that would be injured, as such exchanges would <br />all be senior to the water rights the District is seeking. Upstream development or future <br />exchanges that would be junior to the District's water rights will not be foreclosed <br />entirely since the District has appropriated flows that are less than average, and has not <br />appropriated year -round water rights for the whitewater park. (Exhibit A; testimony of <br />James Slattery.) <br />It is not anticipated that the water rights will affect flooding, flood control or the <br />one - hundred year flood elevations. (Testimony of John DeVore) <br />C. Whether there is access for recreational in- channel use <br />District's Position The Gunnison Whitewater Park is being developed and will <br />be operated and maintained by Gunnison County as described in the Intergovernmental <br />Agreement dated March 26, 2002, between the District and the County ( "IGA "). (See <br />Exhibit E.) The County currently owns a significant portion of the land, bed and banks of <br />the Gunnison River comprising the Gunnison Whitewater Park, and is negotiating the <br />purchase of the remainder. The County anticipates closing that purchase in the near <br />future. (Testimony of John DeVore.) Therefore, access is available for recreational in- <br />channel use. <br />d. Whether Exercise of the Recreational In- channel Diversion Would Cause <br />Material Injury to Existing Instream Flow Water Rights <br />District's Position The District has confirmed with CWCB staff member Ted <br />Kowalski that the CWCB holds no instream flow water rights on the Gunnison River in <br />the reach of the Gunnison Whitewater Course. In addition, there are no other instream <br />flow water rights that would be impacted by the whitewater course. Therefore, exercise of <br />the District's water rights would not cause material injury to existing instream flow water <br />rights. <br />e. Whether Adjudication and Administration of the Recreational In- channel <br />Diversion Would Promote Maximum Utilization of the Waters of the State <br />District's Position Any water rights obtained for the Gunnison Whitewater Park <br />will promote maximum utilization of the State's waters just as much as any other water <br />right. S.B. 216 specifically authorizes water to be diverted and put to beneficial use for <br />recreational in- channel purposes. Beneficial use is the hallmark of "utilization," and can <br />be either consumptive or nonconsumptive. Because a recreational in- channel water right <br />is nonconsumptive, the water, like that used in a hydroelectric facility, is available <br />downstream of the reach for other uses, both consumptive and nonconsumptive. The <br />nonconsumptive use of water on its way downstream to other uses promotes maximum <br />utilization. See Empire Lodge Homeowners' Ass'n v. Moyer, 39 P.3d 1139, 1149 (Colo. <br />we <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.