Re: Durango's RICD Application, Case No. 7-06CW9

Home Browse Search

-10- The course designers provide little justification, other than assertions, that the various flows are the minimum flows for each of the more than twenty -eight different identified recreational experiences. There is no explanation for how the flow rates comport with maximum utilization or how the flow rates were determined to be the minimum amounts for a reasonable recreation experience. With essentially no evidence from the Applicant's experts demonstrating why the various flow rates are the minimum amounts necessary for a reasonable recreation experience the Staff depends on the Board's policies and rules to address this factor. In the CWCB's existing policy and technical criteria manual, the CWCB recommends an RICD flow rate in the range of approximately 50 cfs to 350 cfs for a destination - oriented boating facility. The CWCB further suggests that an RICD flow rate may be unreasonable if it exceeds the 40 percentile flow rate during the intended time period. As the Board knows, this two - pronged approach was adopted by the Board so that there would be suggested limits for larger streams (50 -350 cfs) and limits for smaller streams (40 percentile flow rate). The Applicant's analysis only examines one aspect of this two- pronged policy. The proposed RICD does not conform with this policy as it exceeds the recommended 350 cfs flow guideline from April 1 through August 14. In addition, as shown on some of the attached graphs, there are times when the RICD does not conform with the 40 percentile guideline, such as in some times in the winter and spring. In addition, the Applicant's Parks Master Plan explicitly states: when certain conditions are met, "they provide an opportunity for kayaking even during low /lower flow periods (200 -500 cs) when kayak opportunities are often minimal." See Durango Parks Plan, page 29. In addition, the Application seeks different flows associate with two structures, and a different set of flows associated with two other structures, and finally a different set of flows associated with one structure. While the Applicant argues that these various structures need different flow rates during the peak summer season to provide for different recreational experiences, the recreational uses associated with one structure may not meet the definition of an RICD as the statute defines an RICD as "the minimum stream flow as it is diverted captured, controlled, and placed to beneficial use between specific points defined by physical control structures pursuant to an application..." (Section 37 -92- 103(10.3), C.R.S. (emphasis added)). Moreover, the Staff notes that the 1200 flow sought for the first two structures (5 and 9) provides a "tourist attraction, whitewater destination" use whereas the second two structures provide the same recreational use in June, but require a flow of 1250 cfs for that purpose. In addition, the Applicant's submitted designs fail to adequately demonstrate whether the requested RICD physical control structures will divert, capture, control and place to beneficial use the water claimed. Thus, the Staff suggests that the Applicant has failed to provide adequate evidence that the various flows are for the minimum amount necessary for a reasonable recreation experience other than unsupported and unsupportable conjecture by the Applicant's course designer. Based on the above - referenced documents and the related analysis, the Staff recommends that the Board recommend that the water court deny water right because, as a matter of fact, it does not meet the definition of an RICD - -that is the flows are not the minimum stream flows for a reasonable recreation experience. Flood Protection • Water Project Planning and Finance • Stream and Lake Protection Water Supply Protection • Conservation Planning