My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Rules Hearing in Montrose Minutes
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
3001-4000
>
Rules Hearing in Montrose Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/14/2010 1:10:57 PM
Creation date
6/14/2010 9:37:24 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
Description
RICD Meetings Notes and Comments
State
CO
Basin
Gunnison
Water Division
4
Date
7/23/2001
Author
CWCB
Title
Rules Hearing in Montrose Minutes
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Hoskin: B 1 of sb, comment on that in relation to 1000cfs <br />Chris: leg gives authority to consider that. Need to consider nature of rec use as similar to approp <br />of hydro, instream flow and other nonconsumptive uses. <br />Miskel: thanks cut off for next people. <br />Steve Glaser (Blaser ?): Sierra Club and High Country Citizen's Alliance. Both opposed this leg <br />and basically b/c of our interp that it unfairly limits or tends to restrict right to appropriate wtaer <br />for beneficial use. That being said, more specifically at rules. This is my first opportunity to look <br />at new revised rules. Rules was look at were May 30, not much difference. But preliminary <br />comments, will submit more extensive written comments later. Pretty much shadow Chris's <br />comments. Section 5 of rules seems to go beyond scope of leg intent. Shifting of burden of proof <br />of what this board's responsibility in evaluating application. Should put burden of getting <br />information on applicant. Not think of requireing mucy beyond what court would require. <br />Section 12, findings, had thorough discussion of access issue. On `e' encourage too much <br />speculation on what might happen in future. Can only go on facts in front of you. Too much <br />speculation, encourages speculation of future uses. <br />Section F roman 4, question wether by reviewing sufficient lighting may be exposing you to <br />liability in case of exposure. Are you permitting safety of experience by requireing certain safety <br />to be considered? <br />misinterpretaiton of CWA. CWA says if identified use then wq must be protected to that <br />use. Takes opposite. Says that if wq not sufficient to protect use then limit use, that's not what <br />CWA says, revise that or eliminate it. <br />_: don't think should investigate wq? <br />Steve: EPA through state, if identified use then state must set standards to protect use. <br />Steve: if from point source, reg point source. Sec 303d going through lots of litigation, get into <br />TMDL to control NPS through BMPs but not a regulatory provision. <br />RK: Liability. Incur liability if build and operate courses? <br />Steve: when go on rafting trip, have to sign a waver. Not a lawyer so not sure of exposure. <br />Don't' think this board intends to get exposed to waiver. If someone injured will go over <br />everyone. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.