BOARD01571

• Board Meeting Date: 5/24/2004
• Description: ISF Section - Longmont Recreational In-Channel Diversion ‎(RICD)‎ Informal Hearing, Case No. 1-01CW275
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

.

e

.

Exhibit A
City ofLongmont
Case No. 200] CW275
Page 5

construction in the White Water Course as described in paragraph 7 above. ~ 37-92-103(7), 10
eR.S. (2003).

14. Diversion and use. The controlling ofthe claimed anlounts of water during the
claimed time periods by the proposed in-channel structures and devices and the use of such water
for the intended recreational in-channel boating purposes:

A. Represents a reasonably efficient practice of diversion and beneficial use.
Alamosa-LaJara Water Users Protection Ass'n v. Gould, 674 P.2d 914,934-5 (Colo. 1983); ~g 37-
92-102(2)(b), 37-92-103(4) and (7), 10 C.R.S. (2003).

B. Represents the use of that amount of water that is reasonable and
appropriate under reasonably efficient practices to accomplish without waste the purpose for
which the appropriation was lawfully made by Longmont. ~ 37-92-103(4) and (10.3), 10 C.RS.
(2003 ).

C. Will create opportunities for the intended recreational experiences to occur,
at the minimum stream flows needed to provide the identified recreational experiences. ~37-92-
103(10J), 10 C.R.S. (2003).

15. Reasonable recreational experience. The intended recreation experiences are
. reasonable. g 37-92-103(10J), 10 C.R.S. (2003). By using the proposed in-chaonel structures and
devices in a reasonably efficient manner to control that amount of water that is reasonable and
appropriate to accomplish without waste the intended recreationa1.in-channel boating purposes,
and by thereby providing opportunities for reasonable recreation experiences to occur with the
minimum amounts of water for each recreational opportunity, the proposed appropriation of water
meets the beneficial use standards historically applied to water rights which standards, as
recognized by Senate Bill 216, are also to be applied to "recreational in-channel diversions" as
well as the standards applied specifically to "recreational in channel diversion." See ~37-92-
103(4) and (lOJ), 10 C.R.S. (2003). See also Santa Fe Ranches Propertv Owners Assoc. v.
Simpson, 990 P.2d 46, 53-54 (Colo. 1999).

16. No inlpainnent of compact entitlements. The adjudication and administration of
the claimed water right will not impair the ability of Colorado to fully develop and place to
consumptive beneficial use its compact entitlements. g 37-92-102(6)(b)(I), 10 C.R.S. (2003).

17. . Maximum utilization. The adjudication and administration of the water rights
described herein will promote maximum utilization of waters of the state as referenced in
paragraph (a) of subsection (1) ofC.R.S. ~ 37-92-102(1), or as discussed in broader terms in case
law. S 37-92-I02(6)(b)(V), 10 C.R.S. (2003). See, e.g., Board of County Commissioners of
County of Arapahoe v. Crvstal Creek Homeowners Assoc., 14 PJd 325, 333 (Colo. 2000)(citing