Laserfiche WebLink
such rights are not grounds for their denial, nor are they proper grounds for denial, or <br />recommendation of denial, of an RICD. (Golden, Breckenridge, ERWSD) <br />b Modify by deleting "Whether the amounts of water requested in the RICD application are <br />available for appropriation, and with what ". Start sentence with "The frequency..." and add <br />"that applied for" between "duration" and "amounts ". Availability of water is more <br />appropriate for the water court to determine, though information on water availability will <br />assist Board in application of statutory criteria. The "frequency and duration" issue is <br />appropriately one of the "other factors" the Board can consider pursuant to C.R.S. 37-02 - <br />102(6)(b)(VI). For example, may be inappropriate to decree RICD if water only available for <br />a couple of days all year. ( NCWCD, CSU) <br />Delete. Does not have appropriate statutory authority. Inappropriate for CWCB to consider <br />water availability. Authority not delegated by the General Assembly and determination not <br />necessary for CWCB to address six policy issues identified in SB 216. CWCB not in a <br />position to make a finding of fact with respect to water availability. Primary responsibility of <br />the water court. (CRWCD) <br />vi. Whether the RICD will affect flooding, flood control, or the one - hundred year flood <br />elevations, and, <br />}► The Staff recommends keeping this language as is. <br />b Flooding issues would be subsumed into issue of whether stream reach is subject to control. <br />No need for independent criterion. (CRWCD) <br />vii. Other water uses that may be impacted by the RICD. <br />}► The Staff recommends moving Rule 7(b)(vii) to Rule 7(e) where it better reflects the intent of <br />the factor. <br />b Findings as to whether RICD will impact other water users as specified here exceeds <br />authority and expertise of CWCB. Factor suggests CWCB will consider potential injury to <br />other water users. Not CWCB's function to protect existing uses, potentially injured water <br />users need to protect their interests through appropriate filings in water court. Whether a <br />RICD will result in injury is a decision of the water court. (Pueblo) <br />b Delete. Injury to other users should be determined by water court. If the Board has in mind <br />other types of "impacts" that should be spelled out. ( NCWCD, CSU) <br />b Delete. Not responsibility of CWCB to protect existing water users. They are protected by <br />prior appropriation doctrine. Potentially impacted users responsible for filing Statements of <br />Opposition with water court and requesting conditions necessary to protect their rights. To <br />the extent section is intended to address future water uses that may be impacted, it is <br />irrelevant because RICD appropriations cannot be limited or denied based on speculation of <br />future uses. (CRWCD) <br />c. Whether there is access for recreational in- channel use. The Board, in making this <br />finding, may consider, but is not limited to, the following factors: <br />}► The Staff recommends keeping this language as it is because it tracks the statutory language. <br />b CWCB does not have authority to inquire into factors set forth in sections 7(c)(i)- (iii). Once <br />applicant has demonstrated access to stream has or will be procured, inquiry should end. <br />Determining "nature and extent of access required for the activity" or whether access is <br />"readily available" is beyond authority and expertise of CWCB. Existence of impediments <br />11 <br />