Staff's Recommended Findings of Fact and Recommendations

Home Browse Search

time period specified above, would not promote maximum utilization of Colorado's water resources. The Board makes the following findings about this RICD from September 1 through May 15, wherein 250 cfs is claimed: i. The Board finds that there are probable future upstream junior appropriations for direct diversion or storage. Examples are specifically described in the pre- hearing statements filed by Aurora, Colorado Springs Utilities, the Pueblo Board of Water Works, and the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District. More specifically, the location of Turquoise Reservoir, Twin Lakes Reservoirs, Clear Creek Reservoir, and the Otero pump station all indicate how this RICD, as applied for, during the months identified above, would not promote maximum utilization of the waters of the State; ii. The Board finds that the proposed RICD appropriation for the flow amount sought, and the time period specified, will not promote maximum utilization because there are probable future changes, transfers, or exchanges of water rights from points of diversion downstream of the reach affected by the RICD to points upstream of or in the reach affected by the RICD. This was clearly articulated in the pre - hearing statements of Aurora, Colorado Springs Utilities, the Pueblo Board of Water Works, and the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District; iii. The existence of federal policies, regulations and laws affect or will be affected by the RICD does not serve as a factual basis for the Board to determine that the RICD should be denied under this factor; iv. The Board finds that the proposed RICD appropriation does not promote maximum utilization of Colorado's water resources because the Applicant has failed to use a reasonable means to use, divert, capture and control the water for a RICD so as to minimize its call upon the river and avoid waste; V. The Board finds that there is not a reasonable demand for the recreational activities sought for this time period at the flow rates specified. The Board further finds that the flow amount sought for this time period is more appropriate for an instream flow water right because this flow is a flow that may preserve the natural environment to a reasonable degree, but does not have any basis for recreational uses; vi. The Board finds that the application does not have appropriate limitations upon the time of day, days per month, or seasons during which the RICD would be exercised. More specifically, the request for winter time flows does not promote maximum utilization, nor does the claim for 24 hours a day, as requested in the water rights application, promote maximum utilization; Vii. The depth and flow rate of the proposed RICD do not promote maximum utilization for the flow amount sought for this time period; viii. The frequency and duration of the requested amounts of water for the RICD for this time period do not promote maximum utilization; and, ix. The economic effect of the proposed RICD does not serve as a factual basis for the Board to determine that the RICD should be denied or granted under this factor. 3