Re: Formal Comments, RICD Rules - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

struck maintaining central role of the water courts while granting presumptive validity to the CWCB's findings. Assured a relatively simple administrative process for the applicant by only requiring applicant to provide CWCB with a copy of water right application. Applaud CWCB for revising Proposed Rules to encourage voluntary participation of the applicant in CWCB review process. Fully recognize potential for mischief with RICD water rights and why we support an integral role for the CWCB in adjudication process. However, also recognize economic importance of recreation to constituents. Final rules must not attempt to thwart the compromises reflected in the final version of SB216 be establishing unreasonable criteria for the CWCB's evaluation of RICD applications. General Assembly confirmed RICD as a beneficial use of water in Colorado through SB 216. Rules should foster a cooperative relationship between the CWCB and applicants and should serve to facilitate applications for and adjudications of reasonable and responsible RICD water rights. Rules must comply with requirements of Administrative Procedures Act, specifically including C.R.S. § 24- 4- 103(4)(b). Regarding public input. The CWCB should encourage interested persons to provide information relevant to RICD applications, particularly given the short time frame for findings. The Proposed Rules do not, however, address how members of the public or Parties may provide information to the CWCB unless and until a public hearing is requested. Final rules should contain some provision for providing written information to the CWCB prior to or in the absence of a public hearing. b SB 216 may be constitutionally "infirm" but that the comments do not address issues of constitutionality and assume, for purposes of the letter, the constitutionality of SB 216. (Aspen, Golden, Breckenridge and ERSWD (declare to be unconstitutional)) Statement of Basis and Purpose b Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District and its Municipal Subdistrict and Colorado Springs Utility submitted the following comments: b Paragraph 2 provides in part that: "it is anticipated that under the law the CWCB will establish further criteria governing such diversions, such as additional guidance..." Sentence appears inappropriate given that pursuant to the Rules being adopted, the CWCB "has established" such criteria. b Modifications to the first sentence in the second to last paragraph as follows: add "herein" after "Finally, nothing..." and strike "in S.B. 216" after "Finally, nothing..." Delete "to create a water right which did not previously exist by virtue of state Supreme Court interpretation of Colorado Statute or ". It is more appropriate for the Board to comment here on the intent of its Rules than on the intent of the legislature. Board may not want to implicitly endorse the Fort Collins decision. One could argue SB 216 reflected the legislature's dissatisfaction with consequences of that decision and hence the need to clarify the law in that regard. RICDs are considered to be more in the nature of instream flow rights for which decrees ordinarily could not be entered. However, the legislature saw fit to allow such filings so long as they are subject to the legislatively identified constraints. This approach may help the Board defend the statue and rules against future legal challenges. b Modify first paragraph by adding "and criteria" after the words "established procedures" in the third sentence. Add the following to prior to the last sentence in the paragraph: "These Rules fulfill the responsibility of the Board under C.R.S. 37- 92- 102(6)(b) to set forth in Rules, after public notice and comment, the factors to be utilized in evaluating 26