Laserfiche WebLink
t <br />4. Longmont (negotiated settlement) <br />5. Steamboat (after long contentious trial where the water court <br />granted a decree, and the CWCB did not appeal the case). <br />216 cases pending <br />There are several cases that are still pending under Senate Bill 216. In 2006, <br />the General Assembly passed Senate Bill 37 that narrowed the CWCB's role <br />in making findings to the water court, and provided additional guidance on <br />RICDs. However, there have been no filings of RICDs since Senate Bill 37 <br />was enacted. The following cases are still pending under Senate Bill 216: <br />1. Silverthorne (set for trial in August 2007, CWCB recommended <br />approval of a decree) <br />2. Avon (CWCB recommended approval) <br />3. Carbondale (in negotiations, hearing in Grand Junction in <br />September 2007) <br />4. Durango (mediation in July 2007, trial now set for January 2008) <br />Policy Issues <br />As we discussed, there are a number of outstanding policy matters regarding <br />RICDs. Some of the major policy issues are as follows: <br />1. Resolution of outstanding cases - Carbondale and Durango. <br />2. Upper Gunnison WCD case has now been resolved. In that water <br />court application the District was seeking relief from its own <br />RICD. <br />3. Funding issues. (Request by Glenwood Springs for money to <br />assist in the design /construction of an RICD where they would not <br />file for an RICD. Study by Mclaughlin) <br />4. Administration issues <br />5. Potential applications (Glenwood Springs? Canon City? Pagosa <br />Springs? Lyons? Frisco? Others ?) <br />6. Instream flows for recreational (and other purposes). <br />