Case No. 04CW129 Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decree of the Court October 2006

Home Browse Search

the minimum stream flow as it is diverted, captured, controlled and placed to beneficial use k -tween specific points defined by physical control structures, and should not be made absolute for only one structure. Because Chaffee County has agreed to a single point of administration for both Boating Parks, and the B.V. Park already has at least two structures built, among other reasons, the CWCB has agreed it is not necessary to resolve that issue in this case. By Stipulation with Chaffee County, which was approved by this Court, the CWCB and Chaffee County agreed that the decree does not constitute precedent on this issue and does not waive the CWC B's position in any other cases (e;. Statutory RIC I) Provisions. Pursuant to § 37- 92- 102(6)(a), the CWCB held a timely public hearing regarding Chaffee County's application and considered the five statutory factors found in C.R.S. § 37- 92- 102(6)(b)(1) -(V), and made a final recommendation to the Court on those factors. Based upon the evidence presented, the Court finds that Chaffee County is entitled to conditional and absolute water rights for the RICDs given consideration of the five factors set out below: (i). C_ ompact Impairment: Based upon the evidence, the Court f=inds that the adjudication and administration of the claimed RICDs, under the conditions contained in this Decree and the MOU, will. not impair the ability of Colorado to fully develop and place to consumptive beneficial use its compact entitlements. C.R.S. § 37 -92 -102 (6)(b)(I). (ii). Stream Reach Appropriateness: Based upon the evidence, the Court finds that the Boating Parks are located in appropriate reaches of the stream required for the intended use. C.R.S. § 37 -92 -102 (6)(b)(II). The location of the Boating Parks are appropriate for many reasons, including providing recreation and drawing economic activity to the City of Salida and the Town of Buena Vista. The Parks are located near each entity's downtown and are accessible by city roads and may be entered through property owned by the Town and City or, in the case of the additional structures contemplaledt r. the 13M. Park, by way of easements sought to be reserved for that purpose. (iii). Access for Recreational Use: The Court finds that, for the reasons stated above, there is access for the contemplated recreational use. C.R.S. § 37 -92 -102 (6)(b)(III). (iv ). Instreana Flow R. Itts lnju : The Court finds that the RICDs will not cause material injury to instream flow water rights. C.R.S. § 37 -92 -102 (6)(b)(IV). "There are no instreain flow rights in these reaches and the Boating, Parks will be entirely non - consumptive. (v). l�i_q �1ni Utilk4gttic� I Bused upon the evidence, the Court finds that the adjudication and administration of the RICDs, subject to the terms of this decree and the MOU, will promote maximum utilization of waters of the state, by placing a new, valuable beneficial use on the water of an over - appropriated stream, while allowing for continued utilization and development of the waters of the State for both consumptive and non- consumptive uses, including the Recovery Year Exchanges and Limited 9