BOARD01873

• Board Meeting Date: 3/22/2005
• Description: ISF Section - Consent Agenda - Case No. 2-04CW129, Chaffee County
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

)..'

.

.

.

Consent Agenda Item 2a
Case No. 2-04CW129; Chaffee County

Application Summary
This is an application for a Recreational In-Channel Diversion on the Arkansas River for a year-
round water right for a maximum requested flow rate of 1800 cfs, near Buena Vista and Salida
(see the attached map). The Board filed a statement of opposition for the following reasons:

1. Section 37-92-102(3), C.R.S. provides: ".. .no other person or entity [other than
the CWCB] shall be granted a decree adjudicating a right to water or interests in water for
instream flows in a stream channel between specific points, ..., for any purpose
whatsoever." The Applicant may not obtain a decree that violates this statute.

2. The Applicant must be held to strict proof as to its claim that it is diverting the
water claimed in its application.

3. The Applicant must be held to strict proof that it is seeking a water right that is a
legally cognizable beneficial use ofthat water.

4. The CWCB has many water rights in the Arkansas River drainage basin to
preserve the natural environment. The CWCB' s rights may be adversely affected by the
granting ofthe application. .

5. The Applicant must be held to strict proof that all of the statutory elements of a
RICD are fulfilled including but not limited to the following: i) the flow rates must be
limited to a minimum stream flow for a reasonable recreational experience; ii) the
adjudication and administration of this water right will not impair the ability of Colorado
to fully develop and place to consumptive beneficial use its compact entitlements; iii) the'
RICD reach is an appropriate reach of stream required for the intended use; iv) there is
access for the RICD use; v) the exercise ofthe RICD will not cause material injury to
instream flow water rights appropriated pursuant to Section 37-92-102(3) and (4); vi) the
RICD promotes maximum utilization; and, vii) the RICD comports with the other factors
as set forth in the CWCB's rules and regulations.

Other Objectors

The other objectors in this case are: Arkansas River Outfitters Association; the City of Aurora;
the Pueblo Board of Water Works; Castle Pines North Metropolitan District; Colorado Springs
Utilities; the Lake County Board of County Commissioners; the Lower Arkansas Valley Water
Conservancy District; the Colorado Department of Natural Resources; the Colorado Department
of Parks and Outdoor Recreation; the City of Salida; Pueblo West Metropolitan District; the
Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District; Trout Unlimited; the Upper Arkansas Water
Conservancy District; the State Engineer and Division Engineer for Water Division 2, and
Colorado Division of Wildlife.

C:\Documents and Settings\trk\My Documents\consentagenda2a _ mem,doc