Laserfiche WebLink
<br />CWCR Staff ResDODse to Trout UnUmited's Comments <br />on tile RulemaldD2 Cor eweR IS' Rule 62. <br /> <br />November 2, 2005 <br /> <br />1. TU C......, - "BectIMU..j'lee ..~.1dvIty ojtelltJHINIY iIIs"""flo" I",."", tile "',. <br />s,,"'" NII.IN tile Diredtlr ,. Gee"" IW reject IIl'lYIptIsalltHut wit".}IN ,dtqs _j tile D WR'. <br />d<<lsio" ."., C.lLS. 37..92-10S(2)(6)(Yll) or '-f"... tile ",*.",. ","iell IIIe IOIUI proJHI~.t <br />prtlJHIsa to co..",ellu ",~ loti'" wi/c"ner Is '.ter. " <br /> <br />ewes Staff RefI)ODSe -- Rule 6g. (1) requires the staff to provide a preliminary response to the <br />proponent within 7 working days after ~ving the offer of a loan of water to the Board for <br />instream flow use. Prior to responding to the proponent staff anticipates conducting preliminary <br />investigations to detennine whether the proposed loan has value for instream flow use and whether <br />the proposed 1~ complies with the provisions of Section 37-83~105(2)(a) C.R.S.. Based on these <br />investigations, the preliminary response would indicate whether or not statTbelieves the proposed <br />loan has value for instream flow use, and would also trigger coordination process for DWR <br />approval~ Staff believes -that this required initial response addresses the time-sensitivity issue of <br />temporary instream flow loans, and that no additional response deadline is necessary in Rule 6g.(2). <br /> <br />2. TU COIIIIIIe.,- "...HBI03f re... tile 'e.ngttllcy'requireJftMtjro. CR.S.39-83...105. <br />I" "".,. tslll1DillllllY ctlBfusioll, .TU...gaa reIfIol'illg ti. njers8ce to '~D'6Mq ".,u' ill tile <br />jbuII cItuI,1l of tile sellteIIU. " <br /> <br />CWCB StaffResoonse - Staff concurs with thi.s comment and has revised the last sentence of Rule <br />6g.(2) to clarify the purpose of the delegation of authority. <br /> <br />3. TV CD...t - "...",,..,.1 (1) bulkGtes litlt 'ttlffwiU ctHInll1IlItB wit" " 1_ proPOlte"t <br />0. leNl'III.,., .eceutlry to blltltlte, tile DWR review procas ._Iy ~i/ tlJlJllYlprUa'. TIle p6na. <br />'if IIJIpropriGte' is II1II6/61'.".' "lid we believe ,"at "aff ."ollld wort. tvltll " IOIIIJ proJHIlN1It Ie <br />;IIltU1te tIa~ D WR l't!View process '" ner;y cae 111 wille" the 10flII holds sOllie potmtlal Vllllle to tire <br />""",rIII e."iro".e"t. TV ."gatl repIIlchtg 'if IIpproprll8' witll .,,1Iku staff "....iIIes dill <br />tAe ,roposetllOflll II", IJ" potelltitJI VIII"I! to 'lie ,,_rill e.viro"",eIlL " <br /> <br />CWCB Staff Response -- Staff agrees that the phrase "if appropriate" needs clarification, but <br />believes that a more appropriate condition would be "unless the proposed loan has no potential <br />value for instream flow use". There may be circumstances where the proposed loan could have <br />.'potential value to the natural environment", but because the proposed loan is located on a stream <br />segment where the Board does not currently hold an instream flow right, the Board would be <br />prohibited by 37-83-10.5(2) from accepting the loan. Another example might be where the water <br />right proposed for loan is junior to an existing instream flow right on the subject stteam and would <br />not make any additional water available to the Board. In both instances, the proposed loan may <br />have some value to the natural environmentt but no value for instream flow use. <br />