My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP08858
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
8001-9000
>
WSP08858
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 2:49:55 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 3:19:08 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8155.910.E.1
Description
Arkansas River - State Division 2 Water Court Cases - Pueblo RICD
State
CO
Basin
Arkansas
Water Division
2
Date
12/21/2004
Author
AMJ
Title
AMJ Comments Regarding 12-21-04 Proposed Stipulation between Pueblo and CWCB
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
2
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 />002551 <br /> <br />AMJ comments regarding 12-21-2004 proposed stipulation between Pueblo and CWCB <br /> <br />Broad Policy Concerns <br /> <br />. Colorado should be concerned about maintaining the integrity of the Water <br />Acquisition Program. <br /> <br />o The State must be able to rely on the Program to provide an alternative to federal <br />bypass flows, reserved rights, endangered species issues, and other statewide <br />issues. Using the Program as a "parking place" or "dumping ground" for <br />abandoned or othelWise questionable water rights will diminish the integrity of the <br />Program. <br /> <br />o The Board adopted strict rules regarding procedures for accepting Water <br />Acquisitions. Any proposed acquisition must follow those procedures. Accepting <br />a donated water right as the basis for the Board's withdrawal from a water court <br />case, without following the procedures outlined in the rules, could have the <br />appearance of a sweetheart deal or bribe, and again diminish the integrity of the <br />Program. <br /> <br />. Accepting the donation of an interest in an RICO water right could put the CWCB in <br />a difficult situation should there be a legislative or judicial reversion of RICOs. <br />Would the CWCB find itself in the position of arguing IN SUPPORT of RICDs since it <br />would be a partial owner? <br /> <br />Detailed Concerns <br /> <br />. Which rights would be conveyed and what are the reach lengths? <br />. Is this a natural stream channel? <br />. Is there a natural environment to be preserved? <br />. Is there sufficient native flow available to meet the donated rights (from Ted's <br />description, it sounded like there was a side deal with Colorado Springs to release <br />water for the RICO from Pueblo Reservoir? Would CWCB be a beneficiary? If so, <br />then why not convey an interest in that water right to the Board as well?) <br />. How much water is required to preserve or improve the natural environment <br />in this reach of the Arkansas? What if OOW finds that 100 cis exceeds the <br />maximum amount of water required to preserve or improve the natural <br />environment (Tom Sharp's concern with the Moser transaction)? How can we <br />agree to accept the water right and settle the case if we don't know what the OOW <br />will find? (Seems a little like "What you need is what I read!") <br />. If there is a natural environment to preserve at night, why not also donate an <br />interest in the RICO during the daytime as well? <br />. Any proposed acquisition must comply with Board procedures for <br />accepting a donation including the 120- day review and public comment period, <br />and publiC hearing. <br />. Designation of Pueblo as an agent of the Board for administration and <br />enforcement may go too far in allowing Pueblo to place formal calls for <br />administration. Although the Board has granted agent status to other entities. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.