My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Proposed Trial Management Order
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
3001-4000
>
Proposed Trial Management Order
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/14/2010 1:36:07 PM
Creation date
6/9/2010 11:46:41 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
Description
Gunnison RICD
State
CO
Basin
Gunnison
Water Division
4
Date
1/1/2003
Author
Cynthia F. Covell, Gilbert Y. Marchand, Jr., J. Steven Patrick
Title
Proposed Trial Management Order
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.
/
22
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
Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District <br />Case No. 02CW038, District Court, Water Division No. 4 <br />shaped dam structures and offset water deflector devices constructed or <br />proposed for construction in the Gunnison Whitewater Course. C.R.S. § 37- <br />92- 103(7). <br />4. The controlling of the claimed amounts of water during the claimed time <br />periods by the proposed in= channel structures and devices and the use of such <br />water for recreational in- channel boating purposes: <br />a. represents a reasonably efficient practice of diversion and beneficial <br />use. Alamosa-- Ladara Water Users Protection Assn v. Gould, 674 <br />P.2d 914, 934 -5 (Colo. 1983); City of Thornton v. City of Fort <br />Collins, 830 P.2d 915 (Colo. 1992); C.R.S. § 37 -92- 103(4) and (7); <br />b. represents the use of that amount of water that is reasonable and <br />appropriate under reasonably efficient practices to accomplish <br />without waste the purpose for which the appropriation was lawfully <br />madebythe applicant. C.R.S. § 37- 92- 103(4) and (10.3) (i.e. itmeets <br />the beneficial use standards historically applied to water rights); and <br />C. will result in reasonable recreation experiences. C.R.S. § 37 -92- <br />103(10.3). See also City of Thornton v. City offort Collins, 830 P.2d <br />915 (Colo. 1992). <br />5. By using the proposed in- channel structures and devices in a reasonably <br />efficient manner to control that amount of water that is reasonable and <br />appropriate to accomplish without waste the intended recreational in- channel <br />boating purposes, and by thereby providing an opportunity for reasonable <br />recreation experiences, the proposed appropriation of water meets the <br />beneficial use standards historically applied to water rights which standards, <br />as recognized by Senate Bill 216 passed by the Colorado legislature in 2001, <br />are also to be applied to "recreational in- channel diversions." See C.R.S. § <br />37 -92- 103(4) and (10.3). <br />6. The adjudication and administration of the claimed water right will not <br />impair the ability of Colorado to fully develop and place to consumptive <br />beneficial use its compact entitlements. C.R.S. § 37- 92- 102(6)(b)(1). <br />7. The adjudication and administration of the claimed water right will promote <br />maximum utilization of waters of the state as referenced in paragraph (a) of <br />subsection (1) of C.R.S. § 37- 92- 102(1). C.R.S. § 37- 92- 102(6)(b)(V). <br />3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.