My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
RICD Rules
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
5001-6000
>
RICD Rules
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/24/2010 11:29:32 AM
Creation date
11/24/2010 11:28:42 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
Description
RICD Rules with suggested changes by Pueblo and Gunnison
State
CO
Basin
Statewide
Title
RICD Rules with suggested changes by Pueblo and Gunnison
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Operating Principles/Plan
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
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
i. Whether the requested RICD is for flow rates that are for objectively reasonable <br />recreational experiences under the particular facts in question; <br />ii. Whether the requested RICD is for the minimum necessary stream flows to <br />accomplish an applicant's identified, and objectively reasonable recreational <br />experience in and on the water, taking into account each type of recreation <br />experience that is identified; <br />iii. Whether the requested RICD is for times other than dawn to dusk; <br />iv. Whether the requested RICD is for a season of use outside of the typical boating <br />season; <br />v. Whether the requested RICD improves the recreational experience sought as to <br />the non -RICD conditions; <br />vi. Whether the requested flow amounts are reasonable in light of the stream <br />involved and the availability of water within the basin; and, <br />vii. Whether the requested RICD physical control structures divert, capture, control <br />and place to beneficial use the water claimed. <br />[Pueblo West suggests adding a sub - factor a maximum flow rate of 356 cfs] <br />[This entire Rule is improper according to TU, the Upper Gunnison River Water <br />Conservancy District and the Colorado River Water Conservation District] <br />[Aurora suggested adding A sub - factor.] [Pueblo has suggested deleting this <br />entire rule] [Southeastern suggests that this rule would contradict the Gunnison <br />decision, and in particular, 7.f.i and 7.fii should be deleted] <br />[Aurora has suggested deleting Rule7.f.vii] <br />g. Pursuant to section 37- 92(6)(b)(VI), an additional factor that is appropriate for <br />evaluation of RICDs is whether the RICD is for a beneficial use as defined in section 37- <br />92- 103(4). The Board should consider the following factors in determining whether the <br />RICD meets the definition of beneficial use: <br />i. Whether the RICD is efficiently designed; and, <br />ii. Whether the RICD wastes water by claiming more than the minimum stream flow <br />necessary for the identified Reasonable Recreational Experience. <br />[Southeastern, Pueblo, and the Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy <br />District has suggested deleting this entire rule as contrary to the Upper <br />Gunnison decision] [The Colorado River Water Conservation District has stated <br />that this is not within the CWCB's expertise, and should be deleted] <br />h. Pursuant to Section 37- 92- 102(6)(b)(VI), an additional factor that is determined to <br />be appropriate for evaluation of RICDs is a description of each recreational <br />opportunity sought by the Applicant at each flow amount sought, and why the <br />flow is the minimum amount for each identified, and objectively reasonable <br />recreation experience sought. <br />[Pueblo and the Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District has <br />suggested deleting this entire rule] <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.