Laserfiche WebLink
i. The nature of the recreational activity for which the RICD is sought, <br />ii. The length of, and depth and rate of flow within the reach necessary to realize a <br />reasonable recreational experience; <br />t► The Staff recommends rewording as follows: "The length of the reach necessary to achieve <br />the intended use. " <br />b This section appears to give CWCB authority to determine what constitutes the necessary <br />reach of stream to achieve a reasonable recreation experience. SB 216 does not suggests this <br />authority, and the CWCB should defer to the applicant as to what constitutes a reasonable <br />recreation experience as this will depend on nature of planned project. (Pueblo) <br />Revise to read "The length of the reach necessary to achieve the intended use." Wording in <br />the Proposed Rules implies that the CWCB can substitute its own judgement for that of the <br />applicant about reasonableness of intended use and amount of flow needed to achieve use. <br />General Assembly asked CWCB to evaluate appropriate reach of stream "for the intended <br />use" not to determine reasonableness of use sought or amount of flow necessary. CWCB <br />should base evaluation on the use intended by the applicant. (CRWCD) <br />iii. Whether the Applicant will or could control the water through the length of the <br />proposed reach; <br />}► The Staff recommends deleting this factor as it will be considered pursuant to the <br />introductory language to this Rule. <br />This section goes to heart of issue, whether identified stream reach can be controlled by an <br />RICD. We believe the purpose of this inquiry is to limit RICD rights to portion of the stream <br />that is or can be actively controlled or manipulated for recreational purposes, regardless of <br />whether any particular application would meet the legal requirements for a "diversion." <br />(CRWCD) <br />iv. Whether the RICD can be adequately measured and administered through the <br />proposed reach; <br />V. Whether the amounts of water requested in the RICD application are available for <br />appropriation, and with what frequency and duration the requested amounts of water <br />for the RICD are available; <br />}► The Staff recommends removal of the availability portion of Rule 7(b)(v) and putting the <br />frequency and duration of the requested amounts into Rule 7(e) as it better reflects the intent <br />of the factor. <br />a Inappropriate for CWCB to determine whether water requested is available as it is outside its <br />authority and expertise. It is responsibility of the State and Division of Engineers. (Pueblo) <br />b An improper factor for CWCB to consider. It has nothing to do with whether stream reach is <br />appropriate. Water availability may be proper area of inquiry for Water Court but not <br />CWCB. Limited hearing to be held before CWCB is inadequate, nor does CWCB have <br />resources or expertise. An extended hearing to adequately handle this issue would be an <br />unnecessary and pointless duplication of the Water Court's proceedings. No basis in law for <br />imposing greater water availability standards on RICDs than any other water right. No need <br />to show "duration" or "frequency" of availability so long as water is available at some time. <br />Thousands of water rights in the state are "flood rights." Limited duration or frequency of <br />10 <br />