Re: Recreational In-Channel Diversion Rules

Home Browse Search

➢ How does CWCB intend to address the differences in applications? (Eric Kuhn, Glenwood Springs) ➢ Can recreational rights be transferred to another entity (entailing their use as a growth management tool and possible cases of selective subordination)? (Kyle Whitaker, Glenwood Springs) Overall Tone Relevant Rule(s): N/A (however Section 5 often cited as an example of tone) Several comments were received that the overall tone of the rules is not a cooperative one and is contrary to the `letter and spirit' of SB 216. Specifically: ➢ The overall tone is one that discourages applications (Chris Treese, Montrose and others). ➢ The rules present "CWCB's overly broad interpretation of its authority under SB 01- 216" and "The bill clearly established that RIDC is a legal and beneficial use under Colorado Law. These rules appear to be a thinly veiled effort to thwart, or at the very least discourage, the very rights, which were established by SB 01- 216." (Representative Miller, letter) ➢ The rules appear to give CWCB quasi-judicial authority. ➢ Representative Al White came to the Steamboat Springs meeting thinking the overall tone was inconsistent with the legislation but left assured that with intended changes (such as should to may), the intent would be properly reflected. ➢ Rules appear to create a separate and potentially parallel process to the adjudication process that is burdensome on the applicant and objectors. Concerned entities would have to prepare two cases (for CWCB and the water court) to adjudicate identical issues. Suggestion made that CWCB holding a role similar to that of the state engineer (summary consultation) (Lori Satterfeld, Glenwood Springs). Other Comments (related to rules): ➢ Timeline: once application is in court, provides little time to the state engineers to perform review (State Water Engineer representative in Steamboat Springs). ➢ Rules focus on boating, but legislation could apply to other water - related recreation such as fishing, swimming, and camping (Dave Taliaferro, Canon City, Jeff Houpt, Glenwood Springs). ➢ Could SB 216 cover filings for maintenance of recreational lake levels? (Jeff Houpt, Glenwood Springs) ➢ Generally, the value of recreational water uses are recognized but people do not want to see RICD change water rights system (includes comments from Farm Bureau members and others as relates to priority of uses, land ownership, water quality, and /or speculation on future uses). Other Comments (not directly related to rules but encompass larger issue of RICD): ➢ Important to recognize the economic benefits of recreation in Colorado.