Laserfiche WebLink
EW: If have stretch not swimmable, if put in application for boat chute for that section, is every <br />other wr holder on stream required to bring that section up to body contact rather than inchannel <br />appropriator if a preexisting condition. <br />Steve: is a provision that says that state can set site specific standards based on ambient condition <br />but to justify that must be proof shown that cause of impairment is natural or irreverable w /in 20 <br />year period. If limitation on standards, then be advisable for entity proposing boat chute use <br />should think twice as to whether wise to do that in irreverible segment. At least posting of health <br />hazards so users know likely to be health risk. Not sure if you want to get into that realm of <br />management or regulation. Think it would be dangerous to suggest that you take authority to <br />limit use based on water equality. Expect if irreverable health hazard based on wq. <br />Ray Wright: ? ?? <br />Steve: need more guidance from orgs on that issue. If I may, brings to point neglected to <br />mention. Most important rspons of board in rev application is to be assured that use or permitting <br />of water right not impair the natural environment especially in segments with instream flow <br />rights. <br />RW: was going to be my next point. Innundation issue and function of flow impaired. Some of <br />kayak courses look like concrete ditches, alteration of course have same impact on board <br />instream flow as far as impact natural environment. Will affect stream reach same as driving <br />cattle, having some impact. In same sense as innundation something to be considered. <br />S: concerned about impacts on natural environment. We are concernened abt extent stream <br />channel manipulated by rec use. Have personal experience to see how rec diversions can impact <br />up and down stream geomorphological affects that could destabilize stream channel. <br />RW: so in support of cwcb look at structures to evaluate for affect esp if instream flow? <br />S: very much so. Primary focus should be whether have neg impact on natural environ, aquatic <br />and riparian where proposed for construction. Often occur where structure require 404 permit, so <br />some evaluation before water right filed on, may be some preliminary work. <br />Hoskin: true of any section that didn't have instream flow that board may consider later. <br />Example of lower warm water section. <br />S: Yes. <br />Board: specuating. <br />Brad Switzer left. <br />Miskel: concludes for today. <br />0 <br />