Laserfiche WebLink
does not prevent applicant from obtaining access and should not be considered unless they <br />make access impossible. Since entities authorized to undertake RICDs possess power of <br />eminent domain, obtaining access will never be an insurmountable obstacle. (Pueblo) <br />b CWCB is required to determine whether there is access. Whether access is by permit, <br />ownership, or agreement is irrelevant to this finding. (Aspen) <br />b This section appropriately revised to focus on relevant questions with respect to whether <br />there is access for recreational in- channel diversion use. (CRWCD) <br />i. The nature and extent of the access required for the activity for which a RICD is being <br />sought; <br />ii. The ownership, leasehold, or other legal interest held by or readily available to the <br />Applicant for purposes of obtaining access; and, <br />}► The Staff recommends removal of the word "readily" for the reasons suggested below. <br />b The word "readily" should be deleted. May be feasible though difficult or time - consuming to <br />obtain access. The CWCB should only recommend denial based on access where it infeasible <br />to obtain necessary access. (CRWCD) <br />iii. Any impediments to the Applicant obtaining access determined necessary for the <br />intended use. <br />d. Whether the exercise of the RICD would cause material injury to existing ISF water <br />rights or the natural environment that rights protect. The Board, in making this finding, <br />may consider, but is not limited to, the following factors: <br />}► The Staff recommends that this language be changed to reflect the statutory language as <br />suggested below. <br />b Existing ISF are determined to be minimum flows, so there will generally be more water in <br />the river than the minimum flows. Only if direction and control of water itself adversely <br />affects the natural environment that the ISF decreed to protect should this be a consideration. <br />Construction of RICD structures may injure the natural environment the ISF was decreed to <br />protect for a period of time. This should not prevent decree of an RICD. (Aspen) <br />b Inclusion of "or the natural environment that rights protect (sic)" is noticeably absent from <br />the Statue and constitute an impermissible expansion of the CWCB's authority. (Golden, <br />Breckenridge, ERWSD) <br />b Delete "or the natural environment that rights protect ". Language should mimic the statutory <br />language. The fact that ISF water rights are tied to a "natural environment" can be set forth in <br />the actual factors identification (see comments below). ( NCWCD, CSU) <br />b Section substantially improved by identifying injury to the natural environment as a <br />consideration. However it is still difficult to understand how an RICD could negatively <br />impact an ISF or how RICD structures might injure ISF itself. Presumably RICD junior to <br />existing ISF and could not reduce flow below decreed ISF. The CWCB should explain how <br />negative impacts might occur if this is important to include. Duty of CWCB to adopt clear <br />regulations and this issue needs clarification to comply with APA. (CRWCD) <br />12 <br />