Laserfiche WebLink
make certain findings about RICDs. If the Board determines that the amount of water sought <br />in a RICD does not represent the minimum amount of water necessary to provide a <br />reasonable recreation experience in and on the water and /or that the RICD does not divert, <br />capture, and control water in its natural course or location with physical control structures, <br />then the Board shall note that determination in its written recommendation to the water court <br />and specifically preserve the Board's authority to argue about this issue in water court. " <br />b These determinations are beyond the scope of CWCB's statutory authority and expertise. <br />(Pueblo) <br />b SB 216 does not require the CWCB board to determine whether an application meets basic <br />requirements to be considered an RICD. The water court should make this determination. <br />(Aspen). <br />* "Basic requirements" to be considered an RICD are not made clear by the rules, so this rule <br />to determine whether an application meets such basic requirements fails a `clarity' test. The <br />water court not the CWCB has the authority for such determination. (Gunnison County) <br />b Rule 6 should be deleted (suggestions below on where to include 6a and 6b). The <br />introductory sentence is inappropriate as determination of whether this meets basic <br />requirements to be considered an RICD rests with the water court. ( NCWCD, CSU) <br />b CWCB does not have authority to determine whether an application meets the basic <br />requirements of an RICD nor is such a determination necessary for CWCB to consider policy <br />issues delegated to it. Rule 6 is an attempt to allow CWCB to establish substantive limit on <br />the amount of water for an RICD and adequacy of control structures. Such determinations are <br />purview of water court, not the CWCB. (CRWCD) <br />6a. Whether the amount of water sought represents the minimum amount of water necessary <br />to provide a reasonable recreation experience in and on the water. <br />b SB 216 does not indicate that the CWCB is to determine whether amount of water sought is <br />minimum amount necessary. Such amount should be determined by intent of application and <br />by the water court. (Pueblo) <br />b An attempt to set substantive limit on amount of water for an RICD by imposing requirement <br />that the amount be the "minimum amount of water necessary... ", but such a limitation is not <br />authorized by SB 216 and is still within the authority of the water court. (Gunnison County) <br />b Determination of the minimum amount of water needed to provide a reasonable recreation <br />experience is beyond the rule making power and expertise of the CWCB, should not be the <br />subject of a relatively short administrative hearing, and should rest with the water court. <br />(Golden, Breckenridge and ERWSD) <br />b Move Rule 6a to 7a or as a new subparagraph under Rule 7 that addresses the "other factors <br />as maybe deemed appropriate for evaluation..." as set forth in the statute. ( NCWCD, CSU) <br />b Delete 6a in its entirety. It improperly infringes on the water court's authority. Appears that <br />the CWCB seeks any opportunity to impose a value judgement about reasonableness of <br />intended use and state an opinion about whether it approves or not of quantity of flow <br />requested. SB 216 authorizes CWCB to make findings about specific policy issues. Cannot <br />make binding legal conclusions on definition of RICD or minimum stream flow because the <br />proper statutory authority does not exist. The CWCB should not try to transform opinion and <br />arguments into fact or law through RICD rules (CRWCD) <br />