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

Home Browse Search

With regard to the appropriate reach, Rule 7.b.iv. and v, 2 CCR 408 -3 (2003) provides that the CWCB must consider whether "the RICD will affect flooding, flood control, or the one - hundred year flood elevations." (See also CWCB Staff's RICD Policy and Technical Criteria Manual dated November 21, 2003 (Section 2)). The applicant did not supply adequate engineering or technical information to the CWCB in order for an appropriate or reasonable review to take place for the subject recreational features. Prior to any water rights adjudication in this case, the Applicant should provide the CWCB with the following information in order for a comprehensive review and assessment to take place: 1) final design drawings, using standard engineering practice, for the boating course features, 2) appropriately scaled plan and profile drawings based on accurate base mapping, topographic information, and /or detailed field surveys, 3) hydraulic models for pre- and post -kayak course conditions, performed and sealed by a Colorado registered professional engineer, demonstrating that the RICD structures do not adversely impact any floodways or 100 -year floodplains, and 4) documentation demonstrating that the structures have been properly permitted by local, state, and federal agencies having jurisdiction in this matter (permits include, but are not limited to, local floodplain development permits and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 404 permits). See also memorandum from Tom Browning. The Applicant has failed to demonstrate adequately how the proposed RICD addresses any environmental effects. The Applicant has not demonstrated how the water depth in the stream reach is at least the minimum depth needed for the identified reasonable recreation experiences. Nor has the Applicant demonstrated whether the RICD is located in a stream reach with an appropriate width for the identified reasonable recreation experiences. Because it has not been adequately demonstrated by the Applicant that the proposed RICD will not adversely affect flooding and the 100 -year flood elevations on the reach, the Applicant has not met its burden to show that the RICD is located within the appropriate reach, and thus, the application should be denied or conditioned on the inclusion of appropriate language in the decree. 3. Whether there is adequate access for the RICD. The Applicant has indicated that the City owns the majority of the property on which the boating park will be constructed. The City does not own a small portion of land that may be required to build part of the whitewater park, however, the City of Durango has indicated that it is seeking an easement from the private owner. Moreover, the City has the power of eminent domain, and it could condemn the property if necessary. The Staff does not contest this factor. 4. Whether the exercise of the RICD would cause material injury to existing ISF water rights. The Staff recommends that the Board find that the exercise of the RICD will not cause material injury to existing ISF water rights. There are no instream flow water rights on this segment of the Animas River. The Staff does not contest this factor. 5. Whether the adjudication and administration of the RICD would promote maximum utilization of the waters of the State. Flood Protection • Water Project Planning and Finance • Stream and Lake Protection Water Supply Protection • Conservation Planning