My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Item 14, Request for Approval of Policy Regarding RICD's
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
3001-4000
>
Agenda Item 14, Request for Approval of Policy Regarding RICD's
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/17/2010 2:13:45 PM
Creation date
6/16/2010 2:54:49 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
Description
RICD
State
CO
Date
9/12/2003
Author
Tom Browning, CWCB
Title
Agenda Item 14, Request for Approval of Policy Regarding RICD's
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Board Memo
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
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
Rate should be based upon more general characteristics of the stream reach, site, <br />intended use, and efficient use of the flow. The CWCB recommends that Applicants <br />follow these guidelines: <br />• The CWCB recommends an RICD flow rate in the range of approximately 50 cfs <br />to 350 cfs for destination - oriented boating facilities. An actual RICD flow rate <br />for a specific site will vary within this range depending on water availability and <br />other factors related to the recreational facility. The CWCB suggests that an <br />RICD water right should be granted for an intended use and for a specific flow <br />rate during an intended period of time. Several parties suggested not limiting <br />RICDs to one single identified flow rate. The CWCB suggests that an RICD <br />flow rate be unreasonable if it exceeds the 40th percentile flow rate during the <br />intended time period (flow rates can be evaluated or estimated using available <br />streamf low gage data or other acceptable means). <br />• Based on the futile call doctrine, a holder of an RICD should not be able to call <br />for the water right if such a call would not result enough flow to provide a <br />reasonable recreational experience. <br />The above - recommended range of flows for a destination - oriented RICD was arrived at <br />through the following means: <br />• A review of existing and planned "pay for" courses worldwide. At "pay for" <br />courses, the boaters are presumably having a reasonable recreational experience <br />because they are willing to pay for the experience. (See the "Summary of <br />Hydrologic Requirements in the Appendix). One party suggested that this <br />policy concentrate more on courses in Colorado. <br />• Surveys of existing boating courses, including surveys obtained for the Golden <br />and Gunnison whitewater courses. Those surveys determined that a reasonable <br />recreation experience could be obtained at those courses within the range of flow <br />rates stated above. <br />• Recommendations and opinions from the CWCB's RICD expert, who has significant <br />experience with evaluation and design of boating courses locally and nationwide. <br />• Evaluations that the high end of the CWCB's recommended flow range (350 cfs) is <br />at or above the minimum flow rate utilized for a significant number of recognized <br />and international quality sites throughout the world (including the internationally <br />recognized boating course at La Seu d'Urgell, Spain, which operates with flows as <br />low as 210 cfs. See the appendix for details). <br />6. Hydraulic Engineering Definition of Control <br />A recreational whitewater boating course must include hydraulic stream features that <br />provide "control" of the streamf low as required by engineering principles. The hydraulic <br />4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.