Laserfiche WebLink
<br />l' <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />application is limited to the minimum stream flow necessary for an objectively reasonable <br />recreation experience in and on the water. If not, then an applicant has not satisfied the <br />fundamental elements of a RICD because any appropriation in excess of the minimurn <br />stream flow for a reasonable recreation experience in and on the water does not put water to <br />a beneficial use. <br /> <br />"The Supreme Court holds that in the present case, both the CWCB and the water <br />court erred. By considering stream flow amounts and recreation experiences other than those <br />intended by Applicant, the CWCB exceeded its review authority under SB 216 and gave the <br />water court no guidance regarding how Applicant's plans might affect the five statutory <br />factors under consideration. Moreover, since the water court did not consider whether <br />Applicant's intended inchannel recreational diversion was in fact a RICD as defined by SB <br />216, the water court erred when it awarded Applicant a decree in the claimed stream flow <br />amounts. For these reasons, the Supreme Court reverses the order and decree of the water <br />court and remands this case to the water court with directions to remand to the CWCB for <br />further proceedings consistent with its opinion." <br /> <br />11. South Platte Three-State Cooperative Agreement. <br /> <br />The key to the implementation of the proposed program is the FWS biological opinion. <br />The states and the federal agencies are discussing how better to define the program for its <br />evaluation in the biological opinion. There are three main issues remaining in better defining <br />the program: I) the extent to which any changes will be allowed in the program without <br />triggering rcopcning of permits issued in reliance on the program; 2) the design of the <br />Adaptive Management segment of the program and whether it will be a compliance factor; <br />and 3) defining the starting points of the program. The State negotiation team is making <br />progress on each issue and expects that the Program definition will be complete by the end of. <br />March 2005. <br /> <br />The South Platte Water users expect to form a non-profit corporation (South Platte Water <br />Related Activities Program Inc., to be known as SPWRAP) in early March 2005. This entity <br />will fund much ofthe Colorado obligations under the Program. The State and SPWRAP will <br />need to negotiate an MOD to reflect the nature of the relationship between the entities. That <br />process should begin in March of200S. <br /> <br />Some changes are being discussed on the North Platte element of the Program that may <br />require North Platte users to mitigate impacts caused by new population growth in Jackson <br />County on the North Platte instead of on the South Platte as previously proposed. CWCB <br />will initiate discussions with North Platte water users to get their input on the proposed <br />changes before the North Platte new depletions plan is finalized. <br /> <br />12. Rio Grande Well Controversv. <br /> <br />A Case Conference was held on February 14 before the Division 3 Water Court. We set <br />the trial for 6 weeks to begin on January 30, 2006. Our side was ready to go much sooner <br /> <br />5 <br />