Laserfiche WebLink
<br />r\('l:\lf.1 <br />uuu 4'L1. <br /> <br />V~\ <br />(~ ~\ <br />,~\ \7 <br /> <br />The effect on other EXISTING OR REASONABLY FORESEEABLE uses of <br />the amount of water claimed.l rUpper Gunnison River Water Conservancy <br />( District sUl!l!ests that this Rule is inappropriate and should be deletedl <br />IX. Denver Water Recommends that the Board add two factors: 1 Whether a <br />RICD shields waters from a consumptive use that would otherwise be <br />available under a particular compact: and. 2) Whether beneficial <br />\\ consumptive water use opportunities upstream from the claimed RICD <br />would further develop Colorado's compact entitleemtns and would e <br />impaired bv Applicant's soul!ht for stream flow amounts.l <br />Pueblo West su ests addin the followin factors: The amount and location <br />of future demand for consumptive use water in the basin: the amount an <br />location of future demand for consumptive use water in other basins in <br />Colorado that could be met from the basin Un which the RICD is proposed1 <br />were it not for the proposed RICD: subfactors i. ii. and iv from Factor e. <br />Also. all holders ofRICD water ril!hts should be required to track and report <br />user days and other suitable economic information or cancel the RICD water <br />ril!hts.l <br />rSoutheastern I!enerallv support the proposed rules chanl!es under 7.a1 <br />b. Whether the RICD appropriation is for an appropriate reach of stream for the intended <br />use. The Board, in making this finding, may consider, but is not limited to, the <br />following: <br />i. The nature ofthe recreational activity for which the RICD is sought; <br />ii. The length of and efficiency ofthe diversion ofthe proposed reach required for <br />the intended use; <br />111. Whether the RICD can be adequately measured and administered through the <br />proposed reach; an.e, <br />IV. Whether the RICD will affect flooding, flood control, or the one-hundred year <br />flood elevations; rTU. Steamboat and Chaffee County consortium. and the <br />Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District opposed to this rule as <br />not relevantl <br />v. el(y/ations. Whether the applicant has complied with all federal and state statutes <br />and regulations regarding flooding. flood control. the one-hundred year flood <br />elevations. and river channel manipulation;rWest Slope Network sUl!l!ests that <br />this rule would require the course to be desil!ned in advance of the <br />applicationUPueblo and the Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy <br />District sUl!l!est this rule I!oes beyond the CWCB's authorityU Steamboat <br />and Chaffee County consortium sUl!l!est this rule is outside of the CWCB's <br />expertise and willlenl!then the amount of time RICD hearinl!s will takeUThe <br />Colorado River Water Conservation District sUl!l!est rewordinl! this rule as <br />follows: "Whether the Applicant can demonstrate that it will complv with aU <br />federa and state statutes and rel!ulations rel!ardinl! floodinl! . . . prior to <br />construction. " <br />VI. Whether the RICD in its proposed location can adequately pass all flows UP to <br />and including the lOO-year (1 % vrobability) flood flow without causing adverse <br />impacts to upstream. downstream. or adiacent property owners; JWest Slope <br />Network sUl!l!ests that this rule would require the course to be desil!ned in <br /> <br /> <br />5 <br />