My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD01008
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
1001-2000
>
BOARD01008
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 2:57:00 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 6:48:22 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
1/27/2004
Description
CWCB Director's Report
Board Meetings - Doc Type
Memo
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
81
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />recreation experience could be obtained at those courses within the range of flow <br />rates stated above, <br />. Recommendations and opinions from the CWCB's RICD expert, who has significant <br />experience with evaluation and design of boating courses locally and nationwide <br />were considered, <br />. It is observed that the high end of the CWCB's recommended flow range (350 <br />cfs) is at or above the minimum flow rate utilized for a significant number of <br />recognized and international quality sites throughout the world (including the <br />internationally recognized boating course at La Seu d' Urgell, Spain, which <br />operates with flows as low as 210 cfs). <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Recreational opportunities other than whitewater boating are assumed to exist, and the <br />Board recognizes that an RICD application for a water right for such an opportunity <br />may be applied for under Senate Bill 01-216. As with whitewater USes each recreational <br />opportunity will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis to determine if the Applicant's <br />requested flow rate is tailored to the minimum flow necessary (during the appropriate <br />season and time of use) to provide a reasonable recreational experience for the <br />intended recreational opportunity. <br /> <br />6. Control <br />The definition of an RICD according to SB 01-216 requires that an Applicant design and . <br />construct at least two structures in the stream that act to capture, divert, control, and <br />place the water to beneficial use between those structures, <br /> <br />Two types of "Control" will be reviewed by the CWCB. The first is the hydraulic <br />engineering definition of control: A section across the stream where a manmade <br />structure caUSes the flow to pass through critical depth when flow changes from <br />subcritical to supercritical. The phenomenon gives rise to what is known as a control <br />section. Control of the entire flow should occur and be effective within each river <br />cross-section of interest for each RICD flow rate requested by Applicants. <br /> <br />The second type of control is the legally defined one in Colorado. This definition <br />appears to be different than the hydraulic engineering definition of control. Control is <br />not defined by statute and Colorado courts have not provided a final definition as to <br />what constitutes control in a legal sense, The Fort Collins case (Cache La Poudre River) <br />implied that control exists when a structure or device changes the direction or flow of <br />water, "Capture" is related to "control" and has not been previously defined. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.