Laserfiche WebLink
iii. The nature and types of recreational activity or activities for which the RICD is <br />sought were considered by the Board, and the types of recreational activities <br />sought are not appropriate for the flow rates sought at the times of year sought. <br />The Applicant has indicated that the flow rate of 1800 could provide world class <br />kayaking experiences, but the Board finds as a matter of fact that this reach is not <br />an appropriate reach for world class kayaking experiences; <br />iv. The length of the proposed RICD further demonstrates as a factual matter that this <br />RICD appropriation is not for an appropriate reach of stream. The Board finds <br />that the RICD appropriation is essentially for a 25 -mile reach and this is not an <br />appropriate reach of stream. <br />iii. The Board finds that there are adequate stream gages to measure the RICD, but <br />that the Wellsville gage is not adequate to measure the flows at the RICD reaches, <br />and if the Wellsville gage is to be used, the amount of the water right should be <br />reduced at each location accordingly; <br />iv. The Board finds that RICD reach may affect flooding, flood control, or the one- <br />hundred year flood elevations and that the Applicant has failed to provide any <br />credible information demonstrating that the RICD would not affect flooding, <br />flood control, or the one - hundred year flood elevations. <br />c. Whether there is access for recreational in- channel use is a factor upon which the Board <br />must make findings of fact. The Board makes the finding that there is not adequate <br />access for the RICD. The Board makes the following findings about this RICD from <br />May 16 through June 30, wherein 1800 cfs is claimed: <br />i. The nature and extent of the access required for the activity for which a RICD is <br />being sought does not serve as a factual basis for the Board to determine that the <br />RICD should be denied under this factor; <br />ii. The ownership, leasehold, or other legal interest held by or available to the <br />Applicant for purposes of obtaining access have not been demonstrated. As such, <br />the Board finds as finding of fact that there is not adequate access for the RICD; <br />and, <br />iii. Whether there are impediments for the Applicant obtaining adequate access does <br />not serve as a factual basis for the Board to determine that the RICD should be <br />denied under this factor. <br />d. Whether the exercise of the RICD would cause material injury to existing ISF water <br />rights. The Board makes the following findings about this RICD from May 16 through <br />June 30, wherein 1800 cfs is claimed: <br />There are no ISF water rights in this reach of the Arkansas River, and therefore <br />the exercise of this RICD will not cause material injury to exist ISF water rights. <br />e. Whether the adjudication and administration of the RICD would promote maximum <br />utilization of the waters of the State is a factor upon which the Board must make findings <br />of fact. The Board makes the finding that the RICD, for the flow amounts and time <br />period specified above, would not promote maximum utilization of Colorado's water <br />resources. The Board makes the following findings about this RICD from May 16 <br />through June 30, wherein 1800 cfs is claimed: <br />5 <br />