Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, Ruling of the Referee and Judgment and Decree of the Court

Home Browse Search

District Court, Water Div. 5, Colorado Case No. 06CW77; The Town of Carbondale Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, Ruling of Referee, & Judgment and Decree of the Court Page 6 of 10 as limited and conditioned in this Decree, are for reasonable recreation experiences in and on the water. 2. Minimum Flows: The proposed appropriation of water meets the standards applied specifically to recreational in- channel diversion because the proposed Structures will be used in a reasonably efficient manner to control the amount of water that is reasonable and appropriate to accomplish without waste the intended recreational in- channel diversion. C.R.S. § 37- 92- 103(4) and (10.3) (2005). The different flow rates represent the minimum flows to provide for competitive events, an attraction for users before and after this event, as well as minimum flows to provide for other uses before and after the main boating season. The ability to attract word - class competitions, elite boaters, and a larger number of total boaters and tourists for the competitive events and during the height of the boating season depends upon the availability of flows between May 15th and July 14th at a minimum of 1,600 cfs for no more than ten days, 1,300 cfs for no more than fifteen days, and 1,100 cfs for no more than twenty days. The Court also finds that the varying decreased flow rates below 1,100 cfs, between 230 and 970 cfs, as listed in paragraph E, above, are the minimum flows to provide a variety of other reasonable recreation experiences before and after the height of the boating season. Can and Will: The waters claimed by the Town of Carbondale can be and will be diverted, or otherwise captured, possessed, and controlled and will be beneficially used. C.R.S. § 37- 92- 305(9)(b) (2005). The project can and will be completed with diligence and within a reasonable time. C.R.S. § 37- 92- 305(9)(b) (2005). The Structures for the Carbondale Gateway Boating Park are in the planning process. As part of this finding, the Court concludes that water is available in sufficient quantities and on sufficiently frequent occasions to complete the conditional appropriations with diligence and within a reasonable time. It is the CWCB's position that pursuant to C.R.S. § 37 -92- 103(10.3) (2005), a RICD water right should be for the minimum stream flow as it is diverted, captured, controlled, and placed to beneficial use between specific points defined by physical control structures and should not be made absolute for only one structure. Because the Town of Carbondale has agreed to a single point of administration for the Carbondale Gateway Boating Park, the CWCB has agreed that it is not necessary to resolve that issue in this case. The CWCB and the Town of Carbondale have further agreed that this decree does not constitute precedent on this issue and does not waive the CWCB's position in any other cases. K. Statutory RICD Provisions: Pursuant to C.R.S. § 37- 92- 102(6) (2005), the CWCB held a timely public hearing regarding the Town of Carbondale's application and considered the five statutory factors found in C.R.S. § 37- 92- 102(6)(b)(I) -(V) (2005) and made a final recommendation to the Court on those factors. The Court has duly considered the recommendation of the CWCB to this Court filed on September 1, 2008. Colorado Water Conservation Board v. Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District, 109 P.3d 585 (Colo. 2005). Based on the