Laserfiche WebLink
➢ Concern from agricultural community that a dollar to dollar comparison does not <br />encompass all the benefits related to agriculture (Calvin Roberts, Glenwood <br />Springs). <br />➢ Findings and recommendation from CWCB process become presumptively correct in <br />water court, which shifts the burden to the applicant to overcome that presumption. <br />This may establish a second administrative level in which the court is hearing a water <br />right application and what could be an appeal of an administrative decision (Jeff <br />Houpt, Glenwood Springs). <br />➢ Suggestion that under the Water Rights Administration and Determination Act, <br />CWCB may want to help identify what criteria a referee or water judge considers in <br />rulings (Jeff Houpt, Glenwood Springs). <br />➢ Concern expressed several times that recreation districts are not able to apply for <br />RICD (per SB 216) while entities that are more likely to abuse the system (water and <br />sanitation district were mentioned) are eligible. <br />➢ Concern was expressed over the ability to conduct water transfers upstream of an <br />RICD (Dan Craig, Steamboat Springs and others). <br />➢ Concern expressed about the downstream impacts of an RICD (both the flow and the <br />geomorphologic changes to the streambed from the in- channel diversion structures). <br />Part of the concern relates to the uncertainty of what the impacts would be and how to <br />determine them. <br />• <br />• <br />6 <br />