Laserfiche WebLink
Rules Hearing <br />Montrose, July 23, 2001 <br />TK: This is the set of rules that went out after last meeting and should reflect all comments of <br />board members at that meeting. Hoskin says he didn't receive it. <br />RK: Makes powerpoint presentation. Here to take input on draft rules, stress on draft. Open it <br />up to comments from the public to the board in regards to rules. All will be taken into <br />consideration and ocmpiled after last hearing and put into recommendations to board in October. <br />Will discuss rules and hear public comment then and adopt or send back for more revision. <br />Anticipate that will be adopted and published in state register and enforceable on January 1. <br />Rules are up on web site and can make comments through web site, given same weight as <br />testimony heard today. <br />Miskel: Board members have any comments /questions about procedure. 2 will be during board <br />meetings. <br />Hoskin: Only public input today, NO. <br />Miskel: Input from the public, stimulate further thought by board members. If public wants to <br />talk, let susan know. <br />Chris Trece: nice to be here. Not all the river district's comments. Come and share some of <br />global concerns with current drat rules. Represent CO River Conservation District. Will also <br />comment in Glenwood and written comment. <br />Overall concern with tone and overall message that convey. Rules read frankly as if purpose is to <br />fort or discourage application of recreation in channel diversions. Further think from cwcb and <br />state perspectives, rules have dangerous directions in general policy. Share four of those today. Is <br />camel's nose under the tent in suggesting that recreation in channel diversion require permission <br />of state agency. Concern being slippery slope to permit rather than court prior appropriation. <br />Draft rules require applicant and board to speculate not only on what will but what could <br />possibly happen in future. Speculation into future w/o any limit or guidelines, sidebars on <br />speculation is both impossible and inappropriate direction to ask water rights applicants to take. <br />Also direction in draft rules that require board and applicant to look at water quality as factor in <br />appropriateness in appropriation. Board has been an ally to water user community to make sure <br />that quality not contorlloign factor in rights. Similarly reuqirement in draft rules to consider <br />ownership of adjacent lands as if that should be deteriminant in prior appropriation system. We <br />supported leg and applaud entz in compromises, frankly do have concerns with reps and senators <br />that were persuaded to vote for sb 216 that when they read rules they may find that the spirit and <br />letter of sb not being fulfilled. One example is that everything in draft rules reuqire applicant to <br />provide all this information, beyond reach of any applicant, lots of shoulds, SB 216 makes clear <br />that only requirement is to provide cwcb with copy of applicatin that went to water court w /in x <br />days (30 ?). <br />