Laserfiche WebLink
b Must be significantly revised to comply with legislation authorizing the RICD rules. SB 216 <br />states that the CWCB shall consider whether an RICD would promote maximum utilization <br />of waters of the state as referenced in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this section. C.R.S. <br />37- 92- 102(1)(a) refers to maximum utilization in the context of integrating the appropriation, <br />use and administration of tributary groundwater with surface water. Thus, the relevant <br />question is whether the RICD would limit the development of additional groundwater from <br />the stream's aquifer to provide for conjunctive use of groundwater and existing surface water <br />supplies. This would involve an analysis of the stream /aquifer relationship within the RICD <br />reach and whether the RICD would prevent development of that aquifer for conjunctive use <br />with surface supplies. If the RICD would limit or prevent such development of the aquifer, <br />the CWCB may consider whether the means of diversion could be modified to decreaase its <br />impact on the development of the aquifer and still achieve the intended use. Rather than <br />focus on policy issue identified by the General Assembly, the Proposed Rules distort the <br />issue to create an opportunity for the CWCB to address a variety of inappropriate subjects, <br />including, once again, the impact of RICD on future, speculative uses. (CRWCD) <br />i. Whether there are any probable future upstream junior appropriations for use or <br />storage; <br />}► The Staff recommends adding the word "direct" before the word "use" as suggested below, <br />but otherwise not changing this language or potentially making the future diversion points or <br />places of storage be specifically in the planning stage. <br />* Sections i and ii allow the CWCB to consider "probable" water uses, storage, transfers, <br />changes or exchanges. Only existing water rights are entitled to consideration. CWCB should <br />not speculate concerning future uses, which anyhow would be junior rights. Considering <br />"probable" uses implies RICDs are disfavored and should not be granted if there are possible <br />consumptive uses, decreed or not. This is counter to system of appropriation, Colorado Law <br />and SB 216. To consider such "probable" uses require speculative determinations based on <br />conjecture, rather than objective, and reviewable, conclusions. (Pueblo) <br />b Add "direct" before "use" and add "which would be negatively impacted by the existence of <br />the RICD" after "storage ". "Direct" simplifies intent of this provision, for example, Northern <br />District and CSU do not believe intent was to protect future upstream RICDs. (NCWCD, <br />CSU) <br />b This consideration is irrelevant to whether an RICD will promote "maximum utilization" <br />because it is too speculative. (NWCCOG -QQ) <br />ii. Whether there are any probable future changes, transfers, or exchanges of water <br />rights from points of diversion downstream of the reach affected by the RICD to points <br />upstream of the reach affected by the RICD; <br />}► The Staff recommends not changing this language or potentially making the future diversion <br />points or places of storage be specifically in the planning stage. <br />See Pueblo comment in 7(e)(i). <br />b The limitation, of an RICD to the minimum amount of water necessary (as set forth in Rule <br />7, including this subfactor), goes far beyond the opening statement in Section 2 that Rules are <br />only intended to set forth procedure. It is an example of how the Rules are substantive <br />provisions designed to limit the type, amount and extent of the RICDs authorized by SB 216, <br />14 <br />