Re: Formal Comments, RICD Rules - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

RICDs. It incorporates, and provides additional guidance upon, the factors specified in C.R.S. Section 37- 92- 102(b)(I) through (V) and identifies those "other factors" determined appropriate by the Board pursuant to C.R.S. Section 37 -92- 102- (b)(VI)." b Some parties raised the "public trust" issue in their preliminary comments. This could be addressed by adding the following: "Nothing in these Rules is intended to modify existing appropriative rights or impact future appropriative rights for traditional consumptive uses through the imposition of limitations upon the exercise of such rights for the benefit of public interests under a public trust theory, or to in any way incorporate such a theory into the adjudication or administration of water rights under Colorado law." b The Basis and Purpose Statement is most useful to parties if it identifies the "key issues" raised at a hearing and their ultimate disposition. Includes issues discussed, but for which specific language is "not" incorporated into the Rules because it is rejected by the Board. Hence, it may be appropriate to publicly state that the Basis and Purpose Statement will not be finalized until a certain number of days after close of the hearing record. This will allow staff in the AGO's to finalize that work product. Depending upon the hearing, the Board may wish to consider giving the parties who provide comments a certain limited number of days in which to submit a proposed Basis and Purpose Statement. b Colorado River Water Conservation District submitted the following comments: b The Statement of Basis and Purpose contains erroneous and misleading representations about the content of SB 216 which must be deleted. In particular, numbered paragraph 2 misstates the statutory definition of "recreational in- channel diversions" in that the statutory definition does not refer to the "minimum flow necessary," nor does it require the applicant to hold an ownership interest in the lands abutting the RICD reach. The next sentence has an unsupportable interpretation of that definition, limiting a RICD right to the minimum amount of water necessary to float a kayak through boat chutes while ensuring that the entire flow of the reach is not dedicated to the RICD right. These groundless declarations about SB 216's content and meaning are followed by an expansive interpretation of CWCB's authority under the statute. b The Statement of Basis and Purpose asserts that the CWCB has the authority to establish criteria governing RICDs, including appropriate time of day, season of use, length of reach, and maximum utilization demands. The CWCB's stated goal is to establish objective benchmarks for judging propriety of RICD appropriations, but this interpretation of authority is incorrect. It is responsibility of the water court. The CWCB's statutory authority is limited to consideration of six policy issues in connection with individual applications. This misinterpretation of extent of authority is the source of many of the deficiencies in the Proposed Rules. The River District encourages the CWCB to reevaluate the extent of its authority and to modify the rules accordingly. Requests for Extension of Rule- Making Process Timeline b NWCCOG -QQ appreciates work the CWCB staff on these Rules, yet process to adopt Rules seems very rushed. NWCCOG -QQ hopes the Board will take additional time if necessary to consider changes and recommendations suggested by interested parties in this very important issue. b The Board of County Commissioners of Gunnison County respectfully requests that the CWCB conduct a further public rule- making hearing after considering the public input on November 8, 2001, and after redrafting the proposed rules on that input. 27