Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <,.= .. <br />. <br /> History and Background of ISF Rule 7 <br /> Impetus for addressing inundation of ISF water rights formally: <br /> . Board had filed SOPs to proposed inundations in several cases <br /> . One case was set for trial, scarking the question of what Board's <br /> policy on inundation should e. <br /> . In early 1990, CWCB Director Bill McDonald requested public input <br /> on two questions: <br /> - "Whether the Board should file Statements of Opposition to <br /> applications for conditional storage rights if the conditional right <br /> sought would result in inundation of a stream :p'ment upon <br /> which the Board holds an ISF appropriation, an , <br /> - Were statements of opposition to be filed, what terms and <br /> conditions it can and should seek to protect its ISF <br /> appropriation?" <br /> . This re~uest initiated the len~th~ public process leading to adoption <br /> of the I F Rules, including I F ule 7. <br />. <br /> -. <br /> Issues Raised in Public Rulemaking Process <br /> . Wide range of opinions on how the Board should treat inundation <br /> . Assertions of water development interests: <br /> - Inundation is never injury. <br /> - The Board has no statutory authority to prevent inundation. <br /> - Proposed rule constituted a "taking." <br /> . Assertions of environmental advocates: <br /> - Inundation alwavs constitutes injury to an ISF water right. <br /> - The Board has no statutory authority to allow such injury. <br /> . During public review period, questions raised on the constitutionality <br /> and legality of the proposed rule regarding inundation <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />7 <br />