Re: Recreational In-Channel Diversion Rules

• Description: RICD Rules
• State: CO
• Date: 9/13/2001
• Author: Rod Kuharich, Dan McAuliffe, Dan Merriman, Ted Kowalski
• Title: Re: Recreational In-Channel Diversion Rules
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Board Memo

Locations and Dates
Montrose
July 23, 2001
Canon City
August 1, 2001
Northglenn
August 6, 2001
Glenwood Springs
August 7, 2001
Steamboat Springs
August 7, 2001
Cortez
September 24, 2001
Summary of Comments by Topic Area',
Concern over Implications for Future Uses and Compact Entitlements
Relevant Rule(s): 5(c)i, 5(c)v, 12(a), 12(e) (and subsections), 13(h)
Comments focused on a concern that these sections encourage speculation about future
uses which some suggested is conflictive with the state's general approach to
appropriation (speculation is discouraged and use is a measure of right). Specific points
include:
➢ Rules require applicant to determine impacts on future uses, compact entitlements,
etc. Is it appropriate to ask applicants to make these determinations or is this the
responsibility of CWCB?
➢ There are no limits or guidelines on the speculation of future uses. How far into the
future, for what quantities of water and how feasible do potential projects need to be
for the projects to be considered by the Board and the water court?
➢ The speculation aspects of the rules seem to elevate future uses over present
legitimate ones.
➢ Denial of rights (or limits on appropriated flows) for future uses may be interpreted as
a taking (Eric Kuhn, Glenwood Springs).
➢ It is technically very difficult, if not impossible, to determine impacts of an
appropriation on compact entitlements.
Submissions Required of Applicant
Relevant Rule(s): 5 (all subsections)
Comments focused on a difference between scope of the legislation and scope of the
rules. The legislation only requires an applicant to submit a copy of the water right
application to the CWCB whereas the rules present a list of additional information the
applicant shall submit to CWCB. Specific points include:
➢ Rules should clearly reflect that the only requirement of the applicant is to submit to
CWCB a copy of the application submitted to water court.
➢ This section takes the rules beyond legislative intent.
➢ Burden of proof is shifted to the applicant (one specific example addressed by a
couple of people was that the applicant is required to determine whether the RICD
would injure a Board ISF, 5civ).
➢ Some factors may not apply to some cases.
' If a comment can be specifically traced to a single person it is noted in parentheses after the comment.
Some comments are more general in nature and not attributed to a single person.
2 Comments are from all meetings held to date. Comments from Cortez will be incorporated after that
meeting. 0