My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CWCB vs. Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District - Adjudication of RICD under SB 01-216
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
4001-5000
>
CWCB vs. Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District - Adjudication of RICD under SB 01-216
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/16/2010 12:39:05 PM
Creation date
7/14/2010 3:45:43 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
Description
Gunnison RICD
State
CO
Basin
Gunnison
Water Division
4
Date
3/14/2005
Author
CWCB, Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District
Title
CWCB vs. Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District - Adjudication of RICD under SB 01-216
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.
/
56
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
create whitewater features sufficient to attract experienced <br />whitewater kayakers and therefore will be for the minimum stream <br />flow necessary to provide a reasonable recreation experience in <br />and on the water if those stream flow amounts are as follows: <br />250 cfs during May through September, and 0 cfs during the rest <br />of the year." <br />Applicant then proceeded to the water court for <br />adjudication. After hearing testimony and reviewing the CWCB's <br />findings -and conditional recommendation, the water court issued <br />a decree awarding a RICD in the higher flow amounts Applicant <br />claimed and not the 250 cfs recommended by the CWCB. In doing <br />so, the water court acknowledged that Applicant's was "the first <br />application to be addressed under" SB 216. Therefore, the water <br />court began its analysis by examining the language of the <br />statute, leading it to conclude that it was to treat the CWCB's <br />findings of fact as a rebuttable presumption. The water court <br />then addressed what it determined to be the "primary issue" — <br />"whether Applicant has overcome the rebuttable presumption that <br />250 cfs for the entire rafting season is the appropriate <br />quantity of water for its proposed whitewater park recreational <br />use." As the water court explained, "once [the] CWCB concluded <br />that 250 cfs for the entire rafting season was appropriate, <br />Applicant had the burden of going forward to demonstrate why any <br />greater amount is appropriate." "Based on the totality of the <br />4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.