Case No. 03CW86 Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decree of the Court 2005 2

Home Browse Search

Nonetheless, it should be noted that the CWCB's characterization of the flood impacts caused by the RICD structures at issue is simply not accurate. The City has provided the Court with a flood plain pennit demonstrating no impact from the RICD structures and the Court is satisfied with the evidence on this point. iii. Access for Recreational Use. The Court finds that there is sufficient access for the Ickes eed beneficial uses as dese ii7ed itt V, -apj 6.iL. 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 +P -J4Dq .Boy tin Park RPCDR 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 .1 n 11 1. RICD I --*4 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 f Bair ins T=a rks RICD does not impact Colorado's compact entitlements, the CWCB determined that the amount of the claimed 113oating Pa_rld RICD can either be used downstream of the dating P�_t cLl 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 lAgaline P -1 . RICD adds a new nonconsumptive use onto water that is commanded downstream by senior absolute and conditional water rights that substantially exceed the clauned amounts of the Lqoatine_I'_l. 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 L112 `I i n Pa . RICD. These reports further indicate that the claimed RICD flows leave substantial unappropriated water for future upstream development and exchange potential, [Ft h ,r,_the ExclAg b< rl Sources ul' w Iter are not np��ropriated lay the o�tin P Trlc RICD, so that all.4 the Yamp I Rivet dr ainane above the 1 awer StAgecOac Gage all of the Qa C r eels clrainaae_aliove the—oak Creek Ga¢e, and a si¢niiicant l ran at the MOI_dmaSI eek drainage are wholly excluded from rn�J i'ntltrC affects cll' Or cal oatina Park 1ZICD. allowing l "ol future water devclo tc nt in thane are s ft"' fl'olu the Intluen ' th Boats g P,,11-1< k RICD Finally, the City has a�rec d not to onoOSe ar contest future chauges nt Zyater 1 COITT4'SI TUTTil e Iriulit :s within the Cxc[uderl finnrce atul has farther agree not to oral o' cltanaes of water rights of the Upper Yampa District ill Case Nos, 94CW 149, 03CW5 d C'iviP Action �9Z6 Routt County Di�tl"ict 'ourt,_as moditied Iry decree entered in Case No. WO-946-76, l�Vatel Division No -6-J diversion and /ol storac nd tar use of water }r Oln_ Morrison Creek and its tributaries as set forth in narF }era ih 7.c helowd All of the foregoing water rights and future water supplies are ltheefor�el more than sufficient to sustain the Upper Yampa basin through any reasonable anticipated projected build out. Thus, the '�;3e-d4ZU -22 }- off rrlirt tiruls that the Boating r Par Ic RICD lrr Tccord2nce wit1T this 6ecreel does not have any material impact on the development of future water supplies for