Laserfiche WebLink
➢ How would this list change when applying for a conditional water right? <br />➢ Some commentators would feel more comfortable if the shall were changed to "and <br />may also submit the following information ". <br />➢ Language should be drafted that encourages cooperation. <br />➢ Draft rules create a burden on applicant by the extensive list of items the applicant <br />must submit to CWCB (Representative Miller, letter). <br />"Other Information" <br />Relevant Rule(s) 13 and 13i <br />With the inclusion of `other factors' the applicant will not know what information is <br />ultimately to be submitted to CWCB. Specifically: <br />➢ The legislation directed CWCB to determine `other factors' which is what should be <br />developed through the rule making process. This language should not be included in <br />the final draft of the rules (David Hallford and Jeff Houpt, Glenwood Springs). <br />➢ CWCB's role is to provide clear information to applicant as to what factors will be <br />considered (Chris Treese, Montrose). <br />Ownership of Adjacent Lands <br />Relevant Rule(s): 5b, 5ciii, 12biv, 12c (and subsections) <br />These sections elicited both comments and questions. Comments focused on concern that <br />property ownership has not been a requirement of water rights adjudication so <br />consideration of land ownership as a requirement is inconsistent with the existing <br />process. There were also many questions as to whether this is related, or intended to <br />relate to, the right -to -float issue. Specific issues include: <br />➢ Rules should refer to access not ownership. "Adjacent ownership should not <br />determine water right." (Chris Treese, Montrose) <br />➢ The federal government is the largest land owner in Colorado, which could give them <br />a measure of control over water rights as adjacent land owners (Eric Kuhn, Glenwood <br />Springs). <br />➢ Is this meant to apply to adjacent or underlying lands? This could move into the right - <br />to -float issue. <br />➢ What happens if an entity applies for a RICD outside of their corporate boundary? <br />The legislation does not specifically bar filings outside of boundaries. (Mark <br />Hamilton, Glenwood Springs) <br />Consideration of Water Quality as a Determining Factor <br />Relevant Rule(s): 5(g), 12(b)v, 13(e) <br />Water quality has not been a controlling factor in water rights appropriation and should <br />remain that way. <br />➢ To a question from the Board as to whether other water right holders would be <br />required to bring a section up to fishable /swimmabe if an RICD were granted, Steve <br />Glazer said that Colorado has a provision that site specific standard are based on <br />