WSPC12529 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

O ;''1 ~. I '1. 5 Uu't..:. The effect on other EXISTING OR REASONABLY FORESEEABLE uses of the amount of water claimed.] rupper Gunnison River Water ConservancY District sU22ests that this Rule is inappropriate and should be deletedl IX. [Denver Water Recommends that the Board add two fadors: 1) Whether a RICD shields waters from a consumptive use that would otherwise be available under a particular compad; and. 2) Whether beneficial consumptive water use opportunities upStream from the claimed RICD would further develop Colorado's compact entitleemtns and would e impaired bv Applicant's soU2ht for stream flow amollnts.] x. [Pueblo West sU22ests addine: the followine:. fadors: The amount and location of future demand for consumptive use water in the basin: the amount an location of future demand for consumptive use water in other basins in Colorado that could be met from the basin [in which the RICD is proposed] were it not for the proposed RICO: subfadors i. ii. and iv from Factor e. Also. all holders of RIm water rit!hts should be required to track and report user days and other suitable eeonomk information or cancel the RICD water riahts.1 [Southeastern e:enerallv sUPpOrt the proposed rules chane:es under 7.a1 b. Whether the RICn appropriation is for an appropriate reach of stream. for the intended use. The Board, in making this finding, may consider, but is not limited to, the following: i. The nature of the recreational activity for which the RICD is sought; ii. The length of and efficiency of the diversion of the proposed reach required for the intended use; 111. Whether the RICD can be adequately measuroo and administered through the proposed reach; _ iv. Whether the RICD will affect floodin~ flood control. or the one-hundred year flood elevations: (m. Steamboat and Chaffee County consortium. and the Upper Gunnison River Water Conservaney District opposed to this rule as not relevant1 v. ele:'.{atiOBS. Whether the applicant has complied with all federal and state statutes and regulations re2a1'din2 flooding. flood control. the on~hundred year flood elevations. and river channel manivulation:JWest Slope Network SU2l!ests that this rule would require the course to be desie:ned in advance of the ap~licationUPueblo and the Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District SU2l!est this rule aoes beyond the ewCR's authoritvU Steamboat and Chaffee County consortium sU22est this rule is outside of the CWCB's exPertise and willlentrthen the amount of time RICD hearine:s will take1IThe Colorado River Water Conservation District SUl!l!est rewordine: this rule as follows: "Whether the Applicant can demo_ate that it will complv with all federa and state statutes and I"e2Ulatio_ ree:ardine: Ooodine: . . . prior to co_traction." Vi. Whether the RICD in its proposed location can adequately pass all flows up to and including the l00-year (l % probability) flood flow without causin2 adverse impacts to UJ>Stream. downstreaIJL or adiacent movertv owners: :fWest Slope Network sue:e:ests that this rule would require the course to be desioed in 5