Re: Formal Comments, RICD Rules

• Description: RICD Rules
• State: CO
• Date: 10/25/2001
• Author: Rod Kuharich, Dan McAuliffe, Dan Merriman, Ted Kowalski, Linda Bassi, Sasha Charney
• Title: Re: Formal Comments, RICD Rules
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Board Memo

for quantities that should be left for future water users. Id. at 972 (water court cannot, in the
absence of statutory authority, deny a legitimate appropriation based on public policy). SB
216 did not authorize the denial of RICDs based on potential future uses. (CRWCD)
iv. The existence of suitable downstream points of diversion or storage for consumptive
beneficial uses before the water leaves the state;
b See CRWCD comment under iii above.
V. Exchange opportunities within the state that may be adversely impacted by the
existence of the RICD; and
b Inappropriate to consider exchange opportunities. Until an exchange is an established water
right, it is not entitled to consideration. (Pueblo)
b See NWCCOG -QQ comment under iii above.
vi. Any adverse impacts of the appropriation upon Compact Entitlements at the point of
the RICD.
}► The Staff recommends deleting this item pursuant to the comments below.
Delete "at the point of the RICD" as it is unclear what the language encompasses. (NCWCD,
CSU)
b Unclear what the Board will be considering here. (NWCCOG -QQ)
b Section should be deleted as it is unclear how RICDs can "adversely impact" Colorado's
compact entitlements. Violates APA requirement that regulation be clear to extent practical.
If question is whether RICD would adversely impact Colorado's ability to develop compact
entitlement at point of the RICD, it is a restatement of General Assembly's question and
should be deleted (whether RICD would impair ability to fully develop and place to
consumptive beneficial use its compact entitlements). Since RICDs are nonconsumptive,
cannot foresee how compact entitlements could be impacted unless RICD requires Colorado
to exceed compact delivery obligations at the state line. (CRWCD)
b. Whether the RICD 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
factors:
}► The Staff recommends keeping this language as it is because it tracks the statutory language.
Factors included here require staff to evaluate number of criteria it is not equipped to
evaluate, such as parameters necessary to achieve a reasonable recreational experience.
Determinations of water availability are province of the water court. Difficult to see how
staff recommendations and Board determinations regarding most of these factors will avoid
being arbitrary. (Aspen)
b In determining appropriate stream reach the pertinent questions are 1) the nature of the
recreational activity sought, 2) the length of reach necessary to achieve the intended use, 3)
whether the proposed stream reach can be controlled for recreational purposes, and 4)
whether the diversion can be adequately measured and administered in priority through the
proposed stream reach. (CRWCD)
0