Laserfiche WebLink
b. The Application could cause injury to Southeastern and to other holders of <br />vested water rights. C.R.S. § 37 -92 -305. <br />C. Applicant's proposed recreational in- channel diversions should not be <br />allowed to operate in any manner or at any time that would interfere with operations of the <br />Fry in gpan- Arkansas Project, either directly or indirectly, or by their effect on any other <br />exchanges that may impact such Fryingpan- Arkansas Project operations. <br />d. Applicant has not shown that it can and will implement and beneficially <br />use all of its recreational in- channel diversion structures with diligence and within a reasonable <br />time. <br />e. Applicant's claims should be limited to the extent water is available for <br />appropriation, pursuant to C.R.S. § 37- 92- 305(9)(b) and Southeastern Colorado Water <br />Conservancy Dist. v. City of Florence, 688 P.2d 715 (Colo. 1984). <br />f. Applicant should be held to strict proof that all of the statutory elements of <br />a recreational in- channel diversion water right are fulfilled, including, but not limited to the <br />following: <br />(1) The quantities and rates of flow claimed in the Application may be <br />excessive; Applicant must establish that the claimed amounts of in- channel diversions are the <br />minimum stream flows diverted, captured, controlled, and placed to beneficial use for a <br />reasonable recreational experience in and on the water; C.R.S. § 37- 92- 103(10.3); Colorado <br />Water Conservation Bd. v. Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy Dist., 109 P.3d 585, 603 <br />(2005); <br />(2) Applicant must establish that adjudication and administration of <br />the claimed recreational in- channel diversion water right would promote, and not impede, <br />maximum utilization of waters of the state, C.R.S § 37- 92- 102(6); and <br />(3) Applicant must establish that adjudication and administration of <br />the claimed water right would not impair the ability of Colorado to fully develop and place to <br />consumptive beneficial use its Compact Entitlements. Id. <br />g. Applicant should be held to strict proof that as of April 25, 2006 it <br />possessed the requisite intent to initiate the applied for appropriation and that its actions put third <br />parties on notice of its intended appropriation. <br />h. Applicant should be held to strict proof that its claimed appropriation is <br />for beneficial use for recreation as authorized by statute, and not for other purposes that are not <br />authorized by law. <br />