Colorado Water Conservation Board Concerning the Application for Water Rights of the City of DATE FILED: June 4? 2015 2?27 r17 m. 71 Gleawood C333 2013CW3 109 Division 5 in Gar?eld County, Colorado PARTY STATEMENT OF CITY OF AURORA, CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS, AND HOMESTAKE PARTNERS The City of Aurora, Colorado, acting by and through its Utilities Enterprise; the City of Colorado Springs, Colorado, acting by and through its enterprise Colorado Springs Utilities; and the Homestake Partners, acting through the Homestake Steering Committee (collectively ?these Parties?), submit their joint Party Statement in accordance with the procedural order entered by the Colorado Water Conservation Board?s Coordinator for this proceeding. 1. General Statement The Cities of Aurora and Colorado Springs, individually and acting through the Homestake Steering Committee, own and operate municipal water supply systems for the benefit of their citizens and the consumers Within their respective water service areas. These Parties rely on decreed absolute and conditional transmountain water rights in the Colorado River Basin, such as the Brisk?Ivanhoe System, Columbine Ditch, Continental?Hoosier Diversion System, Homestake Project, and Independence Pass Transmountain Diversion System. These Parties accordingly have a substantial interest in the City of Glenwood Springs? (?Glenwood? or ?Applicant?) proposed water rights application for a recreational in?channel diversion which would dramatically and adversely affect the future of water use in the Colorado River drainage, if not the entire state. These Parties oppose Glenwood?s RICD for the reasons set forth in this Statement. Fundamentally, Glenwood has ignored the law limiting an RICD to the minimum flow necessary for a reasonable recreation experience, and instead has reversemengineered its proposed RICD to tie up half the flow of the mainstern of the Colorado River. Glenwood?s claims illustrate an intent to appropriate the maximum ?ow that can be called for under the RICD statute in contravention of the law governing RICD appropriations. It is these Parties? position that {00140913.oocx 4} Glenvvood must prove through robust evidence and a rigorous engineering methodology all the elements of its proposed that the ?ow it seeks is the minimum amount actually needed, for the recreation experience it seeks to provide, and that the recreation experience is reasonable, in that it will provide substantiated benefit to the Applicant. And it is these Parties? position that Glenwood?s engineering analysis and evidentiary support do not meet this standard. (See C.R.S. These Parties therefore respectfully request that the CWCB find: (1) Glenwood?s proposed RICDs will materially impair Colorado?s ability to fully deveIOp and place to consumptive beneficial use its compact entitlements under the Colorado River Compact and Upper Colorado River Basin Compact; (2) The adjudication and administration of Glenwood?s proposed RICDs will cause material injury to existing Instream Flow water rights, by harming the environments these rights were meant to protect; and (3) The adjudication and administration of the Glenwood?s proposed in the amounts claimed, do not promote maximum utilization of the waters of the State of Colorado. 2. Disputed Issues and These Parties? Positions. The Recreational In?Channei Diversion Rules, 2 CCR 4088, Rules?) specifically contemplate that the Board consider certain criteria in reaching the findings it must report to the Water Court pursuant to C.R.S. and A reference table relating the disputed issues and these Parties? positions set forth below to the CWCB Rules and criteria, is provided as Exhibit 1 attached hereto. A. Glenwood?s proposed RICDs will materially impair Colorado?s ability to fully develop and place to consumptive bene?cial use its compact entitlements under the Colorado River Compact and Upper Colorado River Basin Compact. The impact of this RICD would be to preclude development of compact entitlements, by shepherding half the volume of the Colorado River to the bottom of the basin. (See CWCB Rule 7a.) {90140913.ooex 4 The Colorado River Water Availability Study established that Colorado may still develop up to approximately 1,000,000 acre-feet of Colorado River water, and that the basin is not over~appropriated See Table 1 below, and Colorado River Water Availability Study, CWCB (March 2012). However, most of the anticipated new uses in the State for Colorado River water will be located upstream of Glenwood?s proposed RICDs. The contemplated future demand on the Colorado River of the RICD, and on adjacent West Slope tributaries that are unaffected by the RICD, as identified by the CRWAS, is approximately 149,500 acre?feet, an amount that is substantially less than most of the recent estimates of the amount of water available. At the same time, the contemplated demand upstream of the RICD (including the Front Range), is estimated to be approximately 551,500 acre?feet (Figure of Exhibit 2). Accordingly, it is not likely that the State can fully develop its Compact entitlements solely by meeting demand on the Colorado River of the RICD and on unaffected tributaries. Table 1 Estimates of Colorado River Basin Water Available for Additional Development by the State of Colorado Low Estimate High Estimate Colorado Water Conservation Board (2009) 0.4 1.4 U. S. Bureau of Reclamation (2007) 0.5 0.9 Colorado River Water Availability Study (2012) Mt Modeled Study Period (1950 2005) 0.4 0.8 Extended Historical Hydrology 0.5 0.9 Alternative Climate Projections 0 1.0 CWCB Staff Anaiysis US. Bureau of Reclamation Hydrologic Determination CRWAS Tech Memo, AMEC Earth and Environmental, January 20} 2 Nevertheless, Glenwood argues that its proposed RICD will have no effect on Colorado?s ability to develop its remaining compact entitlements, because such development can be accomplished below its proposed RICD. Glenwood?s position is not supported by the evidence. Based upon the reported data set forth in Table 1 above, in order to ?fully develop and 4 3 place to beneficial use its compact entitlements,? it is reasonable to expect that a substantial amount of Colorado?s Colorado River water use must occur upstream of the proposed RICD. In addition, Glenwood?s engineer has opined that ?keeping the flow claims below 50 percent of the historically available flow volume,? leaves the remaining 50 percent available for future upstream appropriation, asserting that the volume of water available for upstream apprOpriation in excess of the RICD is 595,250 acre feet. But this conclusion is neither meaningful nor accurate, since a large proportion of that volume cannot be diverted and used without additional upstream storage and exchanges that will be impeded or precluded by the RICD (see below). This is the case because physical supplies upstream of the RICD are limited, and existing senior water right calls, such as those originating from the Shoshone Power Plant, the Cameo (Grand Valley) irrigation and hydropower rights, and existing upstream Instream Flow rights and RICDs further limit upstream diversions. Figure 2 of Exhibit 2 provides an illustration of Colorado Basin areas in?uenced by existing RICD water rights; Figure 3 of Exhibit 2 sets forth the volume of ?ow claimed by other RICD rights. Taking account of senior water right calls, the period of time when water is available for appropriation upstream of the proposed RICD is typically confined to a relatively short time during the snowmelt runoff period. A more meaningful measure of the potential effect of the RICD on upstream uses is therefore the period of time when the RICD may eliminate ?free river? conditions. These Parties estimate that the RICD could reduce free river conditions by about two months in certain years, with the result that the actual volume available for development in excess of the RICD would be less than 595,250 acrewfeet. Accordingly, Glenwood?s proposed RICD would unilaterally foreclose development in the Colorado River Basin above Glenwood, affecting users both in the basin and on the Front Range. This will result in further ?buy and dry? of agricultural water rights, and could in addition motivate West Slope users to make trans-basin diversions from other river basins, such as the Yampa and Gunnison. At the same time, some 88% of existing water storage capacity tributary to the Colorado River mainstem is located upstream of the proposed RICD. See Table 2 below. Beyond the fact that the area below the RICD lacks substantial water storage facilities, it is impractical for users {00140913.oocx a 4 to divert or store the water below the RICD for consumptive use on either the East Slope or most of the West Slope. Thus, the proposed RICD would hamper any new development of upstream storage to the detriment of both West Slope and East Slope water users. TABLE 2 Principal Reservoirs - Tributary to the Colorado River Main Stem Reservoir Name Capacity Shadow Mtn/Grand Lake 17,354 Grandby Res 539,738 Willow Ck Res 10,553 Windy Gap Res 445 Williams Fork Res 96,822 Above Proposed RICD Sites Upper Blue Res 2,140 Dillon Res 257,304 Green Res 154,645 Wolford Res 66,000 Homestake Res 43,989 Sub-total I, 188, 990 'Ruedi Res 102,369 Grass Valley Res 6,989 Below Proposed RICD Sites Ri?e Gap Res 13,601 Vega Res 33,500 Strmeotal 156,459 Total 1,345,449 of Storage Capacity Above Proposed RICD Sites 88% of Storage Capacity Below Proposed RICD Sites 12% In addition, the reduction of the period of time that ?free river? conditions occur, and its consequent reduction of the time during which water can be diverted and delivered on tributaries to the Colorado River would also interfere with the ?exibility of existing storage operations. As issues related to the Colorado River Compact, Lake Powell levels, and related administration increase, it becomes ever more important to maintain the maximum amount of ?exibility for storage operations in order to address future water management options and develop compact entitlements. 4} 5 Such in?exibility in reservoir operations could have major effects in the Colorado River basin. In the last few years, the CWCB has endorsed the use of innovative water management agreements to improve and develop consumptive and non?consumptive uses across the basin. Many, if not most, of these agreements rely on modifications in the management of existing storage operations. As an example, the Coordinated Reservoir Operations Program was established in 1995 as part of the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program. As stated in Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program, News Release: Spring Releases for Endangered ish a ?No Go? this Year (May 24, 2013), the Program?s: purpose is to enhance spring peak ?ows to a section of the Colorado River upstream of Grand Junction without causing ?ooding. In years when snowpack is above average, surplus in?ows to the ?ve reservoirs can be passed on to bene?t two species of endangered fish in the Colorado River: the Colorado pikeminnow and the razorback sucker. But this program will likely be inhibited by the proposed RICD, because reservoir operators will anticipate reduced free river periods (as discussed above) and will be unwilling to forego or reduce their diversions during run-off. Like storage, exchanges are an important mechanism that will be required to develop Compact entitlements while protecting existing water rights and uses, as well as environmental values. By calling water through the RICD reach, and thereby preventing upstream diversions or storage by exchange, this RICD will reduce exchange potential in the RICD reach. This in turn will discourage and impede employment of water banking, future co?operative agreements, or other management tools such as the upstream storage statute, C.R.S. 37?80-120, that need to rely on exchanges through the RICD reach (or upstream storage) to operate. In other words, the proposed RICD will negatively affect other decreed and undecreed water rights in the basin, as well as reasonably foreseeable future uses, by decreasing the number of days users can divert water, impairing ?exibility of reservoir operations, and impeding exchanges. More broadly, such a large apprOpriation half the ?ow of the Colorado River will put pressure on upstream consumptive users to fully develop their existing senior rights, instead of reaching ?exible cooperative arrangements. {00140913.oocx 4} 6 In addition, Glenwood has not proposed provisions for reducing or canceling the RICD appropriation under any circumstances. In this regard, Glenwood has not established the specific recreational experiences it intends to serve, merely stating in the decree that ?fall recreational uses in and on the Colorado River . . . without limitation? will be served. Both the statute and the Colorado Supreme Court?s holdings, however, establish that a beneficial use of the water for an RICD only occurs upon the use for ?reasonable recreation experiences in and on the water.? See Colo. Water Cons. Bd. v. Upper Gunnison River Cons. Dist, 109 P.3d 585, 598 (Colo. 2005). As a practical matter, since its decreed recreational use would be ?without limitation,? Glenwood proposes an RICD water right where ?diversion? alone the mere flow of water through the reach) constitutes the beneficial use. It is these Parties? position that, as for any Colorado water right (except a CWCB instream flow), actual usage of the water for a reasonable and documentable beneficial purpose is required to appropriate the right. Beyond that, while Glenwood proposes to appropriate half the flow of the Colorado River, it opposes implementation in its decree of C.R.S. and enacted to prevent the holder of an RICD from calling more than 50% of annual stream volume. The amount of water that would constitute 50% of the sum of the total average historical volume of the Colorado River at the RICD points is not static, but will change overtime. However, Glenwood does not propose to honor such limitation in the future if circumstances change, by monitoring such changes, adjusting its claims in response to such changes, or even changing its RICD structures to accommodate such future changes. These Parties believe, at the least, that the RICD should be subject to stated milestones and/or reality checks, with appropriate stream?ow monitoring and documentation of actual RICD recreational usage, to ensure appropriate modification or cancellation, and administration g, call limitations) of the RICD. In summary, because shepherding half the volume of the Colorado River to the bottom of the basin would impair development of consumptive uses of water that is available and needed upstream of the adjudication and administration of the RICD would materially impair Colorado?s ability to fully deveIOp its Colorado River Compact entitlements and place them to beneficial use, and the Board should so find. 4} 7 B. The adjudication and administration of Glenwood?s proposed RI CDs will cause material injury to existing Instream low water rights, by harming the environments these rights were meant to protect. These Parties believe that the CWCB Rules appropriately direct consideration not just of injury in the water right sense, but of injury to the environment that the Instream Flow right is appropriated to protect. As noted above, if the RICD is approved, reservoir operators may no longer be willing or able to make storage releases for programs designed to maintain environmental flows that protect the environment, such as voluntary coordinated reservoir release programs Likewise, substitutions and exchanges established to allow modifications to reservoir operations that ultimately secure and protect environmentally desirable flows, may be precluded. Therefore, the RICD will injure environments the CWCB seeks to protect through lSFs, and the Board should so find. C. The adjudication and administration of the Glenwood?s proposed RICDs, in the amounts claimed, does not promote maximum utilization of the waters of the State of Colorado. These Parties believe Glenwood?s proposed RICD does not promote, but will actively impair, maximum utilization of the waters of the State of Colorado. Glenwood?s proposed RICD also violates fundamental principles of Colorado water law applicable to all water rights, including the requirement of a reasonable means of diversion, the prohibition on waste, the anti? speculation doctrine, and the can and will doctrine. These Parties believe the RICD statute and the Rules for RICDs effectuate the application of these principles to RICDs. 1. The proposed RI CD does not employ a reasonable means ofdiversion, seeks more than the minimum stream?ow necessary to support a reasonable recreational experience, and wastes water. Glenwood has not proposed a reasonable and efficient means to effectuate its RICD. Glenwood argues that a single, newly created equation m- the ?Free-Style Surface Index? by itself proves the validity of Glenwood?s claims. But the PSI equation, alone, cannot quantify or {ooraearanocx 1t: 8 determine what the recreational experience provided or created by a particular RICD course would be. It cannot prove that the recreational experience of a course is of benefit to an RICD applicant and therefore reasonable. And it cannot establish the minimum ?ow required for such recreational experience. Instead, the calculated FSI is a function of the RICD structure geometry and the amount of ?ow through that structure. This means that Glenwood could achieve the same desired FSI number or ?score? for a wide range of ?ows simply by adjusting course design. As set forth in the attached summary of testimony of Mr. Darren Shepherd, Exhibit 3, the proposed RICD ?structures? have not progressed beyond a conceptual plan. Glenwood?s assertion that its courses will generate calculate-d FSI values at various flows is therefore without basis, because without a real, substantial, design for a course any FSI is only aspirational. Further, even assuming for the sake of argument that an FSI could be calculated from its conceptual plans, Glenwood?s calculated FSIs are inaccurate because they do not take account of the bypass channels that Glenwood admits must be constructed adjacent to the primary whitewater channel at each RICD structure. Instead, Glenwood?s calculation of the F813 for these structures ignores the bypass channels, and incorrectly assumes the RICD structures will cover the entire width of the river channel. The net result is that Glenwood?s engineering reports overestimate the minimum ?ows needed to achieve the claimed FSI values by approximately 20 to 35 percent. Accordingly, Glenwood?s own FSI calculations overstate the ?required? ?ow by 20 to 35 percent, establishing that the claimed flow rates are 513; the minimum ?ow needed to support the recreational experience that Glenwood claims its structures will provide. Further, the course designs could be readily modified to yield similar FSI values, and the same recreational experience those FSIs purport to describe, at much lower ?ows than those claimed. Therefore, these Parties believe that the RICDs as proposed would not conserve and efficiently use the available stream ?ow, thereby resulting in waste, and undermining maximum utilization. At the same time, historical daily commercial floatboating visitation data collected by the US. Forest Service for the reach of the Colorado River in which the RICD is proposed establishes that the highest daily rates of commercial visitation in this river segment occur at lower rates of flow (Figure 4 of Exhibit 2) Visitation is commonly highest when the stream ?ow a} 9 in the Colorado River near Glenwood is between 1,000 and 2,000 cfs, re?ecting that under current river conditions, a reasonable recreation experience is provided at flows less than 2,000 cfs. In fact, commercial visitation is typically reduced during periods of higher stream flow. Therefore, it appears that higher stream flows, and the increased FSIs associated with such flows, do not create an experience that results in an overall increase in visitation or recreational use. In addition, RICD structures designed to provide the desired hydraulic conditions and recreational experience at a lower rate of flow will provide the desired F813 (and experiences the F815 purport to describe) for a longer duration of time, which will in turn promote maximum utilization of water. For example, during the 20 year period of 1994 through 2013, a ?ow equal to or greater than the claimed flow of 2,500 occurs an average of 65 days per year, re?ecting that the experience Glenwood claims for this ?ow rate would be available no more than 63 days per year on average during the April 1 through September 30 boating season. If structures were designed to provide hydraulic conditions (or FSI scores) similar to those Glenwood proposes for the 2,500 e.f.s. ?ow, that recreational experience could be available over a substantially longer time between April 1 and September 30. (See Table 3 below). This would promote maximum utilization of water. TABLE 3 April 1 - September 30 Boating Season Flow Rate at Proposed RICD Number of Days Flow Equaled or Exceeded?t 2,500 65 2,400 66 2,300 69 2,200 71 2,100 74 2,000 78 1,900 83 1,800 90 1,700 98 1,600 109 1,500 124 1,400 139 1,300 154 1,200 163 1,100 168 1,000 174 4} 10 *Calculated on average annual basis using Colorado River near Dotsero gage flow plus 3.2% gain, 1994 ?2013 Meanwhile, Glenwood states it wants to put on world?class boating events for which the current conceptual plan of the RICD structures demands high ?ows (up to 4,000 for the ?elite? level recreational experience). However, historical flow records establish that such flows will only occur during the claimed time period approximately one year in three. Thus, this proposed beneficial use is not reasonable, reliable, or efficient and it is unlikely that it can and will be achieved. (See below). 2. The proposed RI CD is a speculative appropriation of water that also violates the can and will doctrine. Glenwood has not provided economic analysis to determine or prove the monetary benefits it claims would derive from the creation of intermediate, advanced, and expert courses. Although Glenwood assumes that its structures will bring recreationists and spectators who will spend money within the community, it does not attempt to quantify such potential benefits. This theory, however, has never been the basis of an appropriation of water in Colorado. The anti? speculation doctrine as applied to municipal appropriations requires that the need for a conditional appropriation be substantiated, and the can and will doctrine requires proof that the appropriation, including the beneficial use, will be completed. Pagosa Area Water Sanitation Dist. 12. Trout Unlimited, 170 P.3d 307, 314 (Colo. 2007); C.R.S. 3792-3059). These doctrines demand a level of proof beyond ?if we build it, they will come,? and the economic benefit Glenwood posits must be substantiated by something more than bald claims. in this regard, it is the position of these Parties that current use indicates that the bulk of recreational demand in the Glenwood area is for family?oriented recreational experiences rather than for higher?level experiences. Glenwood has not substantiated either an actual demand for intermediate and elite level experiences, or an economic bene?t from such recreational experiences. (More broadly, it is unclear what the recreational experience sought by Glenwood actually is, as it seeks a right for any recreational activity ?without limitation.? See discussion above). Accordingly, before Glenwood can demonstrate that it will actually place water to an {00140913.oocx 4 1 intended beneficial use, it must define what that beneficial use is, that is, substantiate what recreational experience it needs. Of equal concern is Glenwood?s failure to quantify, or even acknowledge, the costs associated with the Glenwood will incur substantial costs associated with permitting, construction, maintenance, compliance gages, monitoring, and repairs, especially since it claims the structures will be used for world?class competitions. These costs could largely negate any monetary benefits derived from additional tourism and residents? use of the structures; moreover, the monetary benefits will accrue to the general regional economy and will not benefit the Applicant directly, while the costs will need to be borne directly by Glenwood?s tax - and/or water rate payers. Glenwood has also not considered or addressed the other indirect economic costs of its proposals. For instance, the installation of artificial, manmade structures to effectuate the RICD could produce an unnatural, engineered feel that would impair the scenic beauty of Glenwood Canyon. Likewise, periodic construction equipment and work in the river for structure maintenance or reconstruction will disrupt the environment of the Canyon. The potential negative economic impact to tourism that is not related to boating, such as hiking, fishing, hunting, and tourists who visit Glenwood for its beautiful environment, should be identified. Moreover, Glenwood prOposes to use a segment of the existing Glenwood Canyon bike/pedestrian trail for public motorized vehicular traffic and parking for the RICDs (from No Name to Horseshoe Bend). This action may also impair recreational tourism and environmental conditions, including but not limited to bighorn sheep habitat. Glenwood has not demonstrated that it has secured necessary right?of?ways or approvals for this motorized vehicle use, or that motorized use of the bike/pedestrian trail would be welcomed by the community. Furthermore, the indirect costs are not all economic: as discussed earlier, substantial environmental impact could result. For example, Mr. Shepherd?s summary of testimony discusses how the presence of RICD structures inherently alters how sediment is transported and where it gets deposited along a reach. Glenwood does not appear to have contemplated or addressed the scour and sedimentation issues that will be associated with the RICDs, and it has {00140913.uocx 4 12 not described how it proposes to mitigate the risk of geomorphic changes that might affect safety. In sum, Glenwood?s proposal is speculative and there is reason to question whether it can or will be implemented, and thus it does not promote maximum utilization. 3. Glenwood is unable to establish that its proposed RICD can and will secure and use the water it claims. As a threshold matter, Glenwood has not shown the application as a whole meets elements of the definition of an RICD as found in C.R.S. As previously discussed, Glenwood has not established exactly what recreational experiences it seeks to provide; whether those experiences are in fact supported by substantiated bene?ts and therefore reasonable; that the ?ows claimed represent the minimum actually needed to supply those experiences; or that additional water, beyond what is currently available, is needed. Thus, Glenwood has failed to satisfy the elements of an RICD under Colo. Water Cons. Bd. v. Upper Gunnison River Cons. Dist, 109 P.3d 585, 598 (Colo. 2005). Beyond that, Glenwood is not able to show that its proposed RICD can and will place the amount of water it claims to beneficial use. This is unsurprising since Glenwood?s design engineering has not progressed beyond the conceptual stage. Accordingly, no design yet exists that would allow a determination of the specifically contemplated ?uvial characteristics depth and flow rate) within the conceptual RICD structures. It is these Parties? position that a much more complete design, which allows examination and rigorous review of factors such as depth of flow, channel width, channel slope, and other structural considerations, is necessary to adequately define the recreational experience that will result, as well as the minimum ?ows necessary to achieve it. Further, even if Glenwood were to refine and finalize RICD structure designs and install them in the river, it still faces considerable challenges in putting its claimed appropriation to beneficial use. First, some 100,000 acre?feet of the April-September, stream ?ow at the proposed RICD sites is associated with upstream reservoir releases that are not subject to control or call by Glenwood. For example, releases from Green Mountain Reservoir and Granby {00140913.oocx 4} l3 Reservoir to the Grand Junction area are made during the late summer months, and these releases have historically increased ?ow at the RICD locations. Likewise, reservoir releases associated with the CROS program result in increased stream flow at the RICD sites. Since the timing and amount of stored water routed through the RICD sites will vary from year to year in response to the objectives of other water users, it is not certain that such releases will be available for use through the RICD structures. In addition, as noted above, the high ?ow Glenwood seeks for world~class boating events will only occur during the time period for which it is sought one year in three, meaning that the purported beneficial use (world?class boating competitions) can only be made about 33% of the time. Again, it is therefore not clear that the beneficial use claimed can be accomplished. In addition, Glenwood has over-estimated the available water supply and the extent of unappropriated water, and has therefore claimed substantially more than 50% of the total flow at the RICD sites. This results in part from Glenwood?s failure to consider an appropriate study period representative of existing water right development and administration; in part from its over-estimation of the gain in stream?ow that occurs from the Dotsero stream gage to the RICD sites; in part from its failure to consider the in?uence of upstream reservoir releases on streamflow; in part from its failure to exclude in?ows from No Name Creek, which occur below the RICD reaches; and in part from its failure, as described above, to take account of the timing when water is available for upstream diversion. As a result, the ?ows claimed for the RICDs represent more than 50% of the historical total flow in 14 out of the 20 years within the study period. In dry years, the amount claimed is more than 100% of the entire historical ?ow volume; in seven out of the last 20 years, it is more than 75% of the total flow. It is only in substantially wetter than average years that the claimed flows constitute less than 50% of the total. Likewise, the amounts claimed exceed 50% of the historical average ?ow during the 142 day period that extends from April 1 through May 18, and from one 29 through September 30, so that the ?ow claims are only within the 50% threshold during the 41 day period from May 19 through June 28. Thus, Glenwood claims significantly more than 50% of the total ?ow, and will not be able to satisfy the can and will test because it cannot establish that sufficient unappropriated water can and will be available at the times and in the amounts that Glenwood seeks to use it. {00140913.oocx 4 l4 Finally, these Parties also anticipate other can and will impediments to Glenwood?s RICD. For instance, it will be necessary for Glenwood to secure a 404 permit pursuant to the Clean Water Act in order to construct its RICD courses. Issuance of such a permit by the United States Army Corp of Engineers will require environmental assessment, including alternatives assessment. These Parties anticipate that a rigorous assessment of alternatives would demonstrate that the proposed RICD is not the best alternative to secure reasonable recreational experiences that will benefit Glenwood and its citizens. Again, this means that Glenwood has not established that it can or will actually build the structures necessary to effect the RICDs, in order to satisfy the can and will test. For all these reasons, these Parties assert that adjudication and administration of Glenwood?s RICD will not promote maximum utilization of waters of the State, and the Board should so find. 3. Witnesses these Parties anticipate will testify at the CWCB meeting. 3. 1. Joe Stibrich and/or Brett Gracely. Messrs. Stibrich and Gracely are members of the Homestake Steering Committee. Their anticipated testimony is summarized in Sections 1 and 2 above. 3.2. Kerry Sundeen and/or Tyler Benton, Wilson Water Group, 718 Cooper Street, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601; phone: 970-945?2237. Mr. Sundeen?s and Mr. Benton?s anticipated testimony is generally summarized in Sections 2.A. and 2C. above and in the attached Exhibit 4. 3.3. Darren Shepherd, Water Consulting Ltd, 7303 118A St NW, Edmonton, AB, Canada T66 phone: 780-238-5868. Mr. Shepherd?s anticipated testimony is generally summarized in Section 2.C. above and in the attached Exhibit 3. 4. Appended Exhibits. 4.1 Exhibit 1: RICD Findings and Considerations Reference Table 4.2 Exhibit 2: Figures 1?4 4.3 Exhibit 3: Darren Shepherd Summary of Testimony 4.4 Exhibit 4: Wilson Water Group Letter Report 4.5 Exhibit 5: Resumes of Kerry Sundeen and Tyler Benton {30140913.oocx/4 15 Respectfully submitted this 4%h day of June, 2015. CARLSON, HAMMOND PADDOCK, L.L.C. By: . William B?ddock, Reg. No. 9478 Mary Mead Hammend, Reg. No. 9851 Johanna Hamburger, Reg. No. 45052 ATTORNEYS FOR THE CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS AND THE CITY OF AURORA, ACTING BY AND THROUGH THE HOMESTAKE STEERING COMMITTEE By; Mich?eI/Gustafsoaneg. Nd?: 37364 ATTORNEY FOR THE CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS ACTING THROUGH ITS ENTERPRISE COLORADO SPRINGS UTILITIES HAMRE, RODRIGUEZ, OSTRANDER DINGESS, P.C. By: Mm M. Dingess, No. 12239 Ryan P. McLane, Reg. No. 43847 ATTORNEYS FOR CITY OF AURORA ACTING BY AND THROUGH ITS UTILITIES ENTERPRISE 16 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 4th day of June, 2015, electronically filed by ICCES or by email a true and correct copy of the foregoing PARTY STATEMENT OF CITY OF AURORA, CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS, AND HOMESTAKE PARTNERS in Case No. 13CW3109: Mark E. Hamilton, Esq. Christopher L. Thorne, Esq. Holland Hart, LLP 600 East Main Street, Suite 104 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Bartlett P. Miller, Esq. Robert K. Harris, Esq. Western Resource Advocates 2260 Baseline Rd, Suite 200 Boulder, CO 80302 John M. Dingess, Esq. Ryan P. McLane, Esq. Teri L. Petitt, Esq. Hamre, Rodriguez, Ostrander Dingess, RC. 3600 S. Yosemite St., Ste. 500 Denver, CO 80237?1829 Casey S. Funk, Esq. Board of Water Commissioners City and County of Denver 1600 West 12th Avenue Denver, CO 80254 David C. Taussig, Esq. Mitra M. Pemberton, Esq. White ankowski, LLP 511 16th Street, Suite 500 Denver, CO 80202 Mark A. Hermundstad, Esq. Kirsten M. Kurath, Esq. Williams, Turner Holmes, P.C. P.O. Box 338 Grand Junction, CO 81502?0338 4} 17 Jason V. Turner, Esq. Peter C. Fleming, Esq. Colorado River Water Conservation District PO. Box 1120 Glenwood Springs, CO 816021 120 Scott M. Baicornb, Esq. David C. Hallford, Esq. Balcomb Green, RC. PO. Drawer 790 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 Jennifer Mele, Esq. Susan J. Schneider, Esq. Assistant Attorney General Natural Resources Environment Section Ralph L. Carr Colorado Judicial Center 1300 Broadway, 10th Floor Denver, Colorado 80203 Kevin L. Patrick, Esq. Jason M. Groves, Esq. Patrick, Miller, Noto PC. 0229 Midland Ave. Basalt, CO 81621 Edward B. Olszewski, Esq. Olszewski Massih Maurer, PC. 1204 Grande Avenue, Suite 210 PO. Box 916 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 Michael J. Gustafson, Esq. City Attorney?s Office Utilities Division Colorado Springs Utilities PO. Box 1575, Mail Code 510 30 South Nevada Ave, Suite 501 Colorado Springs, CO 80901 Division Engineer Water Division No. 5 PO. Box 396 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 Kristen C. Guerriero, Esq. Special Assistant United States Attorney Office of the Regional Solicitor US. Department of the Interior 755 Pai?fet Street, Suite 151 Lakewood, Colorado 802 15 Jay W. Skinner Water Resources Section Colorado Parks and Wildlife 6060 Broadway Denver, CO 80216 Jay.skinner@state.co.us 4 18 State Engineer Division of Water Resources 1313 Sherman St., Suite 818 Denver, CO 80203 Casey Shpall, Coordinator Natural Resources Environment Section Office of the Colorado Attorney General 1300 Broadway, 7?h Floor Denver, CO 80203 Casey.shpall@state.co.us Suzanne Sellers Colorado Water Conservation Board 1313 Sherman Street, Suite 718 Denver, CO 80203 Suzannesellers@state.co.us 6&5, . .. THIS DOCUMENT WAS EFILED PURSUANT TO RULE I21. ORIGINAL IS ON THE OFFICES OF CARLSON. HAMMOND PADDOCK, L.L.C