Laserfiche WebLink
<br />,. <br /> <br />r,o" <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Colorado Water Conservation Board. <br />June 20, 2005 <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />. below your own 40th' percentile criteria for determining whether a claimed flow <br />. is the minimum amount for a reasonable recreation experience on a given stream. <br /> <br />. Second, the settlement contains a comprehensive agreement not to use the RlCD <br />as a basis to oppose (and theRlCD need not be protected from injury in connection with) <br />future changes of water rights, plans for augmentation and plans for exchange in the <br />Upper Yampa, Morrison Creek and Oak Creek basins. These areas are all located <br />upstream of the RlCD. It is important to understand that this no opposition agreement is <br />the method that the local water users sought to . employ to protect their future water <br />development. <br /> <br />. . <br />." . <br />. . <br />Third, the settlement stipulation provides for a mechanism by which up to 10 cfs . <br />of future upstream diversions could be free from the call of the R1CD. This is the number <br />that the upstream towns, districts, and water users felt would be adequate to protect the <br />. ability of the upstream basin to meet full build out projections. <br /> <br />Your legal counsel a1id staff have been provided with copies of all of the <br />settlement agreements and stipulations. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />As a result of the foregoing, the City believes that the settlement strikes a balance <br />. between protecting the present and future upstream water uses and preserving the <br />minimum flow amounts for the reasonable recreation experience that is essential to the <br />area's local economy. In considering this balance, please keep in mind that you <br />previously determined that the City's RlCD at the original claimed amounts would not <br />adversely impair the development of Colorado's compact entitlement, and every drop that <br />passes through the City Boating Park can be used to meet Colorado's compact delivery <br />. obligation on the Yampa River. <br /> <br />Given the foregoing, the City urges that you withdraw your continued opposition <br />as it will simply serve no useful purpose.. While this case has been remanded to the <br />. CWCB for a very limited review and the August I trial has been vacated, the Judge <br />indicated. that he will reschedule the trial for October. . The only active remaining <br />objectors' are the CWCB and the State and Division Engineers. However, no one from <br />the State or Division Engineers' office has been designated as a witness. Thus, the <br />CWCB is the only true remaining objector. Your lawyers have recently noticed 10 <br />depositions of the City's employees and experts. Ten depositions is an enormous waste <br />of taxpayer money when the actual water users have consented to the reduced RlCD. <br />Further opposition only serves to polanze positions and isolate the CWCB from the <br />citizens of our regions. . <br /> <br />We appreciate your thoughtful consideration of this request. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Sincerely, <br /> <br />fd9139 <br />