Laserfiche WebLink
<br />00045" <br /> <br />sue:e:est that this factor may not be appropriate because mCDs are non- <br />consumptive] <br />V11. The amounts of water claimed; [Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy <br />District sue:e:ests that this Rule is inappropriate and should be deleted] <br />V111. The effect on other decreed. existing undecreed. or reasonably foreseeable uses of <br />the amount of water claimed. [Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy <br />District sue:e:ests that this Rule is inappropriate and should be deleted] <br />IX. Whether a mCD shields waters from a consumptive use that would <br />otherwise be available under a particular compact; [SUGGESTED BY <br />DENVER WATER] <br />x. Whether beneficial consumptive water use opportunities upstream from the <br />claimed mCD would further develop Colorado's compact entitlements and <br />would be impaired bv Applicant's soue:ht for stream flow <br />amounts.[SUGGESTED BY DENVER WATER] <br />Xl. The amount and location of future demand for consumptive use water in the <br />basin; the amount an location of future demand for consumptive use water in <br />other basins in Colorado that could be met from the basin rin which the <br />mCD is proposed] were it not for the proposed mCD; [SUGGESTED BY <br />PUEBLO WEST] <br /> <br />b. Whether the RIcn 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 />1. The nature ofthe recreational activity for which the RICn is sought; <br />11. The length of and efficiency ofthe diversion ofthe proposed reach required for <br />the intended use; <br />111. Whether the RICn can be adequately measured and administered through the <br />proposed reach; <br />IV. Whether the RICn will affect flooding, flood control, or the one-hundred year <br />flood elevations; [TU~ Steamboat and Chaffee County consortium~ and the <br />Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District opposed to this rule as <br />not relevant] <br />v. elevations. 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. or whether the Applicant agrees to <br />include a term and condition in the decree that it will comply with all federal and <br />state statutes and regulations regarding flooding. flood control. the one-hundred <br />year flood elevations. and river channel manipulation; [Pueblo and the Upper <br />Gunnison River Water Conservancy District sue:e:est this rule e:oes beyond <br />the CWCB's authority] [ Steamboat and Chaffee County consortium sue:e:est <br />this rule is outside of the CWCB's expertise and willlene:then the amount of <br />time mCD hearine:s will take] <br />VI. Whether the RICn in its proposed location can adequately pass all flows up to <br />and including the lOO-year (1 % probability) flood flow without causing adverse <br />impacts to upstream. downstream. or adiacent property owners or whether the <br />applicant agrees to include a term and condition in the decree that the RICn <br /> <br />4 <br />