Section4_Rec-EnvWithFigs

• Title: SWSI Phase 2 Report - Section 4 Delineating and Prioritizing Colorado's Environmental and Recreational Resources and Needs
• Date: 11/7/2007
• Author: CWCB
• SWSI II - Doc Type: Final Report

Section 4
Delineating and Prioritizing Colorado's Environmental and Recreational Resources and Needs
Recreational In-Channel Diversion Rules
In 1999, several municipalities filed for a water right
for recreational purposes. The water court approved
the application and it was affirmed by the Supreme
Court in a 3-3 decision.
In 2001, in response the General Assembly passed
SB 216. This bill provided that local governmental
entities could apply for water rights for RICDs, but
limited these types of water rights to the "minimum
stream flow" "for a reasonable recreational
experience in and on the water." Section 37-92-102,
C.R.S. requires applicants for RICD water rights to
provide a copy of their application to the CWCB.
Under SB 216, the CWCB was required to review an
application for a RICD and submit findings and
recommendations to a water court within 90 days of
the expiration of the Statement of Opposition
period. SB 216 further required that CWCB and the
water courts determine whether a decree for an
RICD water right would:
~ Promote maximum utilization of water resources
in Colorado.
~ Impair the development of Colorado's compact
entitlements.
to a maximum of 350 cfs. Although SB 62 passed out
of the Senate, the bill failed in the House. Then, in
2006, the General Assembly passed SB 37, which
was signed on May 11, 2006. SB 37 revised statute
37-92-102(6)(a), (6)(b), and (6)(c), The statute now,
among other things:
Requires the CWCB to make a Findings of Fact
on three factors maximum utilization, compact
entitlements, and injury to ISF water rights.
2. Provides that the CWCB must deliberate in a
pubic meeting rather than holding a hearing.
Defines control structures, "reasonable recreation
experience" and "recreational in-channel
diversion. "
4. Establishes a "deminimis" provision.
5. Provides that an owner of a RICD water right
may not call for the water that bas been lawfully
stored by another appropriator.
6. Establishes a number of requirements for the
water court with regards to RICDs.
7. Provides that these amendments apply after the
affective date of the act.
~ Be located in appropriate stream reach.
~ Be located in a place that has adequate access
~ Injure CWCB held ISF water rights.
~ Meet other factors that are set forth in rules
adopted by the CWCB.
A number of entities applied for water rights under
this statutory provision, including the City of
Pueblo, the Upper Gunnison River Water
Conservancy District, the Town of Longmont, the
City of Steamboat Springs, the Town of
Silverthorne, Chaffee County, the Town of Avon, the
City of Durango, and the Town of Carbondale. So
far, only one application bas made its way to the
Colorado Supreme Court, which provided some
guidance about how to interpret the phrases:
"minimum stream flow" fora "reasonable recreation
experience." In 2005, the General Assembly
attempted to provide some additional guidance
through SB 05-62, which would have limited RICDs
Figure 4-29 depicts both pending and decreed
RICDs. For more information see:
http://cwcb.state.co.us/ WaterSupply/RICD.htm.
4.3.4 Summary of Findings of
Technical Subcommittee
The TRT assembled several environmental and
recreational attributes that can be used by the
Water for the 21st Century Act BRTs in completing
their nonconsumptive needs assessments. In
addition, tools were presented that can assist the
BRTs in both prioritizing and quantifying
environment and recreation needs. Finally, the
CWCB ISF Program and RICDs were described so
that stakeholders have a better understanding of
how those processes work so that when the
nonconsumptive needs assessment process is
complete, interaction with those programs can be
further achieved.
FINAL DRAFT 4-17