Laserfiche WebLink
<br />" <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />Staff Renort and Recommendation <br /> <br />1. Whether the amount of water sought for the ~CD represents the minimum <br />stream flow necessary to provide a reasonable recreation experience in or on the <br />water. (Rule 7) <br /> <br />The Staff questions whether the UGRWCD and its designer understand the <br />requirement to limit the water right to the "minimum stream flow" necessary to provide <br />for a reasonable recreational experience, For example, the Course designer states "it is <br />my opinion that water flows of up to 2,000 cfs is what draws the most boaters from many <br />areas, and that the boating experience and the oper~tion of the Whitewater Park are best <br />at that flow rate." Lacy Report, June 21,2002, page 1. Senate Bill 216 C"SB 216") only <br />permits an entity to obtain a water right for the minimum stream flow necessary to <br />provide a reasonable recreational experience. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />The Staff recommends that the Board find that ,the minimum amount of water <br />necessary to provide for a reasonable recreational ~xperience is 250 cfs for May, August, <br />and September and 500 cfs for June and July. UGRWCD has stated that "the Whitewater <br />Park will attract many boaters at 250 cfs and above." Lacy Report, June 21,2002, page <br />1. In addition, the Applicant admits "the design for the Whitewater Park will allow for <br />the creation of whitewater features at a flow of 250 cfs sufficient to attract experienced <br />Whitewater kayakers..." Lacy Report, August 26,i2002. The Staff's examination of the <br />course when the flows were in the vicinity of 300 cfs confirmed that whitewater features <br />do exist at that flow rate. See Staff's Exhibits 3a-30. The limit of the summer flow <br />amounts would be based, in large part, on balancing the future needs of Colorado against <br />the need to provide for a reasonable recreational el'perience. There is evidence that <br />limiting the RICD amounts during these months Will permit some reasonable water <br />development and exchange potential upstream of the proposed course. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />The Staff also recommends that there be a limit on when the Applicant can place a <br />call for this water right in order to prevent improper calls. Recreation is the beneficial <br />use. The structures do nothing more than faci1ita~e this use, as with all other types of <br />uses. Thus, the Staff recommends that the Board :limit the Applicant to calling only when <br />there is a reasonable probability that someone will be using the course. Also, the <br />Applicant must specify a certain list of agents whp may call for this water right. <br /> <br />i <br />It is not reasonable to request a water right for recreational uses at all hours of the <br />night. The Applicant has not provided any evidence justifying a water right for nighttime <br />hours, and the Applicant "is willing to agree to a condition limiting operation of the water <br />right to the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m." Th~refore, the Staff recommends that the <br />Applicant be limited to uses between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., and be limited to placing <br />a call that would provide water between these times. <br /> <br />TU and the Applicant argue against the Boar~ finding that flows above 250 cfs are in <br />any way futile, because those flows would help s:atisfy the water right. The Staff concurs <br />that when flow are less than 250 cfs, that flow wtll not provide the recreational <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />2 <br />