Laserfiche WebLink
control issues as a basis to recommend against a RICD. Not a single person testifying either in <br />support of or against the bill suggested that "appropriate reach" could include flood control <br />considerations. <br />The fact is that flood control issues have never been a basis to deny a water right, and <br />there is nothing in SB 216 that creates the ability to establish such a precedent. Every traditional <br />direct flow diversion, not to mention every storage facility, potentially impacts the flood plain to <br />some degree. It simply never has been an issue in the water rights context, and recommending <br />against a water right on a flood control basis would run directly contrary to the constitutional <br />right to appropriate. Colo. Const. Art. XVI, § 5. <br />Most relevant to this issue is the fact that the reach selected for the Boating Park LULCADJ. <br />was dictated by the recreation needs the City sought to meet, the area geography, and the City's <br />overall river management objectives. In this regard, the Court takes note of the City's Yampa <br />River Management Plan which was over three years in the making, and the testimony of Mr. <br />Neumann which explains the Management Plan, That Management Plan dictates the appropriate <br />stream reach for the Boating Park I RI CD I to disperse various competing recreation activities on <br />the Yampa River and meet the City's objectives for the Yampa River. Because the CWCB's <br />focus in determining the "appropriate reach" must be made with a view toward the City's <br />intended purposes, no further inquiry under § 37- 92- 102(6)(b)(II) is necessary or appropriate. <br />ph083941 <br />