Laserfiche WebLink
existing and future upstream development. The testimony and letter report of Dr. Danielson <br />further corroborated these +un&,,,prrted+ facts. <br />The Court has also reviewed the December 5, 1995 memorandum prepared by the CWCB <br />Staff in connection with the CWCB's earlier Yampa River instream flow filings explaining that <br />the appropriation of all of the remaining Yampa River flows minus a 52,000 acre foot carve out <br />"can be appropriated without depriving the people of Colorado of the ability to fully develop the <br />remaining compact apportionment." The CWCB Staff cannot argue that an instream flow for all <br />the Yampa River flow is maximum utilization, and now contend in this case that a RICD for a <br />fraction of that amount which dovetails with downstream absolute and conditional water rights <br />and Colorado's compact delivery obligation is not. <br />In Empire Lodge Homeowner's Association v. Moyer, 39 P.3d 1139 (Colo. 2001), the <br />Colorado Supreme Court explained "maximum utilization" means "maximizing the use of <br />Colorado's limited water supply for as many decreed uses as possible consistent with meeting <br />the State's interstate delivery obligations ...." 39 P.3d at 1150. Given the foregoing definition <br />and the unrebutted testimony and evidence, outlined above, the Court finds that the +C-4y' ' <br />oktin-i (DDrain¢ Pack RICD as her gin decreed with tilt limitations and terms as hereinAet <br />1'ori:lr l is consistent with and, in fact, promotes the "maximum utrlrzarion" principle in Colorado. <br />It is a new, clean use of water on top of, and that works in tandem with, existing and future <br />downstream diversions, generating revenue without polluting or consuming a single drop. <br />"Maximum utilization" is served because the water passing through the course is left for other <br />Colorado consumptive uses and to fulfill Colorado's compact delivery obligations on the Yampa <br />River. <br />Accordingly, the Court finds that the adjudication and administration of therta3jt <br />n tj.[lioa i Park I 'D nurSnant to and asst 1'01-th in this decreel will promote <br />maximum utilization of the waters of the state by making a new, valuable beneficial use, without <br />causing any reduction in flow or injury to downstream water rights, and without causing injury to <br />upstream senior nr itmr�c t water rights. C.R.S. § 37 -92 -102 (6)(b)(V). <br />Finally, as detailed above, the � Ei�y s c]�rHated � Boatin � • f flow rates <br />herein decreed] are far less than the CWCB's 40th percentile flow rate policy. Thus, the RICD <br />is consistent with "maximum utilization" under the CWCB's own policy. <br />M. The Supreme Court's Gunnison Decision. This Court is mindful of the Colorado <br />Supreme Court's recent decision in Gunnison, and finds that the 'ry, °- �m-r- <br />oi�it aad a aim tir��cs_c ;�Hbed -ia i d e -ewe} lBoatiug Park RICD righi as decreed <br />herein is consistent with that decision and with Senate Bill 01 -216 as construed in that decision. <br />7. [Lim itiniz I Terms and Conditions. l in order to accomplish jilt-terms of the <br />i i as -ties as rtferred to in h aho an order "t <br />concerns ol'the Division Enginecr_!Vater, Division No. 6, tile fo116winlnrovisions are <br />