Laserfiche WebLink
k. Local Governmental Entity. Means an entity authorized to make appropriations for <br />RICD purposes and includes a county, municipality, city and county, water district, <br />water and sanitation district, water conservation district, or water conservancy district <br />existing in the State of Colorado. <br />t► The Staff recommends accepting the proposed changes to clarify the rules. <br />b Wording "existing in the State of Colorado" limits those identified in C.R.S. 37 -92- <br />102(5). Words considered logical but would perhaps not pass legal scrutiny. (Gunnison <br />County) <br />b Grammatical changes —add `an' before RICD and delete `purposes' after RICD. <br />(NCWCD, CSU) <br />1. Party. Means any person who has filed a statement of opposition to a RICD, or any <br />person who has filed for party status pursuant to Rule 10 of the RICD Rules. <br />t► The Staff recommends keeping this definition as it is because it disagrees that it conflicts <br />with Rule 10. On the contrary, this definition explicitly refers to, and comports with, <br />Rule 10. <br />b Definition as person "who has filed a statement of opposition" conflicts with Rule 10 <br />where it's more broadly defined. (Gunnison County) <br />m. Person. Means an individual, a partnership, a corporation, a municipality, the state of <br />Colorado, the United States, or any other legal entity, public or private. <br />n. Reasonable Recreation Experience. Means an experience in and on the water that <br />would allow individuals of average skills, abilities and interests relating to the <br />recreational activity to enjoy that activity in a lawful manner. <br />t► The Staff recommends deletion of Rule 4n because this matter may need to be determined <br />on a case -by -case basis. If there is a question in a future case as to whether an RICD <br />provides for a reasonable recreation experience, the CWCB can recommend that a water <br />court make such a finding and preserve its ability to argue this issue, without having <br />defined the term. <br />b CWCB should not impose subjective determination that reasonable recreation experience <br />can only be had by a person of average skills, abilities or interests. Reasonable experience <br />depends on nature of planned project and should be determined on a case -by -case basis. <br />(Pueblo) <br />b Limiting definition to an average experience is overly restrictive. Should be determined <br />on cases -by -case basis. CWCB is not required by SB 216 to determine reasonable <br />recreation experience. (Aspen) <br />b Limitation to average skill level ignores broad range of RICD opportunities and is not <br />authorized by the legislation. Compares range of experiences to skiing. (Gunnison <br />County) <br />b Statute does not authorize CWCB to determine what is a reasonable recreation experience <br />nor that reasonable experience is that of an average user. Determination is solely within <br />the province of Water Court and goes beyond the expertise of CWCB or limited hearing <br />it will conduct under rules. Key element in water right appropriation is intent of <br />applicant, which is not limited to average experiences by SB 216 (Golden, Breckenridge <br />and ERWSD) <br />C! <br />