Laserfiche WebLink
<br />" <br /> <br />Staff ReDort and Recommendation <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />1. Whether the amount of water sought for the RICD represents the minimum <br />stream flow necessary to provide a reasona~le 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 ope~ation of the Whitewater Park are best <br />at that flow rate." Lacy Report, June 21, 2002, pa~e L Senate Bill 216 ("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 />The Staff recommends that the Board find that the minimum amount of water <br />necessary to provide for a reasonable recreational experience 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 />L 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,' 2002. The Staff's examination of the <br />course when the flows were in the vicinity of 300cfs 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 ~xperience. There is evidence that <br />limiting the RICD amounts during these months Will permit some reasonable water <br />development and exchange potential upstream of ~he proposed course. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />I <br />The Staff also recommends that there be a lirn;it 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 facilitate this use, as with all other types of <br />uses, Thus, the Staff recommends that the Board limit the Applicantto calling only when <br />there is a reasonable probability that someone wiU be using the course. Also, the <br />Applicant must specify a certain list of agents whO may call for this water right. <br /> <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." Therefore. 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 tin).es. <br /> <br />TU and the Applicant argue against the BoarQ. finding that flows above 250 cfs are in <br />any way futile, because those flows would help s~tisfy the water right. The Staff concurs <br />that when flow are less than 250 cfs, that flow will not provide the recreational <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />2 <br />