Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decree of the Court

Home Browse Search

iii. Access for Recreational Use The Court finds that there is sufficient access for the decreed beneficial uses as described in paragraph 6.h above. C.R.S. § 37 -92 -102 (6)(b)(III). This point was conceded in the CWCB's Findings and Recommendations and the Court concurs. iv. Instream Flow Rights Injury The Court finds that the Boating Park RICD will not cause material injury to any instream flow water rights. C.R.S. § 37 -92 -102 (6)(b)(IV). There are no instream flow rights in the subject reach and the Boating Park RICD will be entirely non - consumptive. This point was conceded in the CWCB Findings and Recommendations and the Court concurs. V. Maximum Utilization In finding that the Boating Park RICD does not impact Colorado's compact entitlements, the CWCB determined that the amount of the claimed Boating Park RICD can either be used downstream of the Boating Park RICD or contribute to Colorado delivery obligations under the Upper Colorado River Compact. The testimony of Mr. Gary Thompson and his letter report dated January 20, 2004, demonstrate that the Boating Park RICD adds a new nonconsumptive use onto water that is commanded downstream by senior absolute and conditional water rights that substantially exceed the claimed amounts of the Boating Park RICD. Mr. Thompson's testimony and letter reports dated January 20, 2004, May 14, 2004, and April 15, 2005, also demonstrate that there are substantial existing conditional water rights and unused storage rights that are senior to and upstream of the Boating Park RICD. These reports further indicate that the claimed RICD flows leave substantial unappropriated water for future upstream development and exchange potential. All of the foregoing water rights and future water supplies are more than sufficient to sustain the Upper Yampa basin through any reasonable anticipated projected build out. Thus, the Court finds that the Boating Park RICD in accordance with this Decree does not have any material impact on the development of future water supplies for existing and future upstream development. The testimony and letter report of Dr. Danielson further corroborated these facts. Given the unrebutted testimony and evidence outlined above, the Court finds that the Boating Park RICD as herein decreed with the limitations and terms as herein set forth is consistent with and, in fact, promotes the "maximum utilization" principle in Colorado. It is a new, clean use of water on top of, and that works in tandem with, existing and future downstream diversions, generating revenue without polluting or consuming a single drop. Accordingly, the Court finds that the adjudication and administration of the Boating Park RICD pursuant to and as set forth in this decree will promote maximum utilization of the waters of the State by making a new, valuable beneficial use, without causing any reduction in flow or injury to downstream water rights, and without causing injury to upstream senior or junior water rights. C.R.S. § 37 -92 -102 (6)(b)(V). -7- tk0236