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

Home Browse Search

JjAoi. RICD structures comprising the Boating Park in the quantities set forth below — fdLaiw: Time Period April 15 -30 May 1 -15 I May 16 -31 June 1 -15 June 16 -30 July 1 -15 Jul 16- I Sept 15 flows (cis) 500 800 1200 1700 S00 300 120 The above amounts claimed are limited to the hours of 8:00 a.m, to 8:00 p.m. -{ exee�t cln i- 9g- "4o–i- 4. (The BoatinE Park RICD right is not gntitl -ed to divert t►tu care, Or control t av te_r at the two diversion structures in the Boating Park hetween 8 pan, and the fallowing 8 .m,, ex elat and provided that, subiect to the limitation of 1 aragraph 7.b below, the City i5 entitled as a part of such absolute water right to the above amounts during- the hours of it midnight on z 10 days between A it Z and Se teen r 1 S f nighttime competitive events {eat lea +lagrrthe [if each sucli night is •st designated in in wrifing, -)vthe Cit , at 1-ast a T ' a an thereof t the Division Engineer for Water Division Nn fij.. h. Diversion and Control. The design capacity of the two RICD strictures is 1700 cfs, which allows flows of that amount to be fully captured by the high flow channel constructed into each stricture without overtopping. Up to 1700 efs is efficiently controlled, concentrated and diverted, without waste, to create waves and jets of water, self - scouring pools, hydraulic holes, large changes in current direction, and whitewater features that are used by kayakers and other boaters and inner tubers for the City's intended recreational purposes. A low flow channel constructed into each stricture controls and concentrates water at low flow to allow passage of boats, inner tubes and other recreational water craft through each structure at lower flows. In view of the foregoing, the Court finds that the RICD structures at Charlie's Hole and D -Hole control, concentrate and direct the flow of water through the structures in a manner that constitutes a diversion under C.R.S. § 37 -92- 103(7)(2004), at all flow rates up to the maximum amounts claimed in paragraph 6.g. above. See also City of Thornton v. City of Fort Collins, 830 P.2d 915, 930 (Colo. 1992)( "controlling water within its natural course.....by some structure or device for a beneficial use thus may result in a valid appropriation "); See also Decree of the District Court, Water Division No. 1 in Case No. 98CW448, dated June 13, 2001, aff'd by operation of law, State Engineer v. City of Golden, 69 P.2d 1027 (2003); Decree of the District Court, Water Division No. 5, Case No. OOCW259, dated June 5, 2002, aff'd by operation of law, State Engineer v. Eagle River Water & San. Dist., 69 P.3d 1028 (2003); Decree of the District Court, Water Division No. 5 in Case No. OOCW281, dated June 5, 2002, aff'd by operation of law, State Engineer v. Town ofBrecicenridge, 69 P.3d 1028 (2003). Accordingly, the Court finds that the Boating Park structures are capable of efficiently diverting and controlling the water flows without waste for the claimed amounts. L Beneficial Use. The ' RIGD water rights arm 113oating Parlc RICD isl decreed for L4WXL the following recreational uses in and on the Yampa River: boating, kayaking, fiiintrl ph083941