Laserfiche WebLink
<br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />('onsenanc)' Disu'iet entered into an agreement resoiling the C\VCB's long-standing <br />opposition tol1ppel' Gunnison's Rccrcationallll-Channel Oilusion (RICD) water rights lar <br />GUllnison County's I\hite\vatcr park, <br /> <br />The scttlcment rcduced the !low amounts for several time periods [i'om the amounts <br />originally sought, and endorscd the limitations the L'ppcr Gunnison agreed to betarc trial <br />whereby the Uppcr Gunnison will not call for the RICO II hen the Gunnison Tunncl and <br />Redlands Canal water rights are calling for. or could call for. their 1\ ateI' rights. <br /> <br />Division 4 Water Judge Steven Patrick approvcd the settlcmcnt. <br /> <br />4. Concerning the Water Rights of the City of Steamboat Springs, Case No. 03CW86, <br /> <br />Judge Michael O'Hara granted the City of Steamboat Springs application for a <br />recreational in-channel diversion (RICO) watcr right for thc City's Boating Park in <br />Novcmber. Ruling from the bench at the end of a 7-day trial. the \Vater Judge found that the <br />presumptive findings of fact of the Colorado Water Conservation Board that the Boating <br />Park was not located in an appropriate reach of the river and that the claimed !lows were <br />wasteful had been rebutted by the contrary cvidence presented by the City. Thus, the Court <br />rejected the CWCB's recommendation that the Water Court deny the application. The Court <br />found that, based on the prepondcrance of the evidence, the City was entitlcd to everything it <br />claimed in its application. The State had argued that the City had provided insufficient <br />hydraulic analysis and engineering design drawings showing that the Boating Park's <br />structures accomplished the intended use of a world-class kayaking with the minimum <br />amount of water necessary. The State also argued that the City's own analysis as part of the <br />Yampa River Management Plan, and the results ofrecreationaluser surveys completed by <br />the CWCB's experts, showed that the claimed !lows were more than double thc minimum <br />amount necessary to accomplish the intended uscs. Following closing arguments, the Watcr <br />Judge ruled that the failure to provide any hydraulic analYSIS or cngineering was not a fatal <br />flaw and that the City had carricd its burden of proof. However, before the City may place a <br />call. the Court ordered that engineering design drawings, signed and scaled by a professional <br />engineer, be delivered to the Division Engineer. <br /> <br />Judge O'Hara issued a written decision on the Steamboat RICI) ease on December <br />12, 2005. A notice of appeal would be due to the Colorado Supreme Court on January 26. <br />2006. The Applicant's attorney scnt a letter to counsel on January 17,2006. in which It <br />requested that the CWCB not appeal this case. The Applicant indicated that it would make <br />no concessions on the timing or amount of its decreed !low rates. but IVould rc\'isc the <br />language in the dccree. <br /> <br />7 <br />