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

Home Browse Search

own purposes. In addition, the Applicant has submitted a tally sheet with the names of 34 people, who estimate the number of days that they would use the whitewater park between September and March. First, the Staff does not agree that these estimates may be valid. One overly enthusiastic supporter indicated that he would use the whitewater course 30 days in every month, including February. Several other people included estimates for themselves and their relatives. Nevertheless, this chart demonstrates how the RICD flow rates sought are not efficiently tailored to the intended recreational uses. The median and mean number of days of usage for the months of September to March are as follows: Median September 10 October November December 10 5 3 January February March 10 Mean September 13 October November December 10 8 6 6 7 January February March 13 Thus, for most of the late fall and winter, people who think that they will use the course during this time period estimate that their use will be less than twice a week. However, the water right is sought for the entire time period, and will have the effect of curtailing new upstream junior water uses during most of the wintertime. Rules 7.e.vii and 7.3.viii suggest that the Board examine the depth and now rate and frequency and duration, and form what sources the requested amounts of water for the RICD occur. This information was discussed, in part above, and will be further addressed below in the section regarding factor 7.f. The Staff does not dispute that there may be positive economic effects (Rule 7.e.ix) from the proposed RICD, but the Staff questions the analysis regarding rafting, as the Staff does not agree that the rafting uses are dependant upon the RICD structures. The Staff is unaware of any environmental effects of the proposed RICD, as contemplated by Rule 7.e.x. Board should consider whether there are any probable future junior upstream diversions for storage or direct use, and any probable upstream exchanges. RICD Rules 7.e.i and 7.edi. This has been addressed above, in the Compacts factor section, as these factors are related. Rules 7.e.xi through 7.e.xx have been addressed in large part above, and will be further addressed below in the description of the analysis regarding Rule 7.f. In sum, 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 promote maximum utilization. The Applicant has failed to meet its burden to show that the RICD as claimed promotes maximum utilization. Flood Protection • Water Project Planning and Finance • Stream and Lake Protection Water Supply Protection • Conservation Planning