My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Comments of the City of Aurora Through its Utility Enterprise August 2005
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
5001-6000
>
Comments of the City of Aurora Through its Utility Enterprise August 2005
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2012 8:48:52 AM
Creation date
7/16/2012 2:42:49 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
Description
Comments of the City of Aurora Through its Utility Enterprise August 2005
State
CO
Date
8/30/2005
Title
Comments of the City of Aurora Through its Utility Enterprise August 2005
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Court Documents
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
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
3. RULE 7 Required Findings; The Board is required to make certain FACTUAL findings <br />abeetRIGB RELATIVE TO EACH RICD APPLICATION. The statutory definition of <br />RICD requires that the applicant claim only the minimum stream flow, THAT THE FLOW <br />WOULD BE USED for a reasonable recreation experience IN AND ON THE WATER, <br />AND that THE FLOW BE 19 diverted, captured, controlled, and placed to beneficial use. <br />Where the existing statutory factors contain the statutorily defined term "RICD" defiaitiee, <br />that definition must be met. Thus, wherever the term "RICD" appears in a factor, an <br />applicant must show that its RICD meets the definition or it has failed to meet the <br />requirements of the factor. Section 37- 92- 102(6)(b)(VI), C.R.S. authorizes the Board to make <br />findings regarding the factors listed below. The Board has included "sub- factors" under each <br />major statutory factor that provide notice to all applicants as to what issoes e&e EVIDENCE <br />IS appropriate for consideration IN THE BOARD'S <br />ESTABLISHMENT OF ITS FACTUAL FINDINGS. <br />a. <br />viii. The effect on other EXISTING OR RESONABLY FORESEEABLE uses of the <br />amount of water claimed. <br />a. Whether the RICD appropriation is for an appropriate reach of stream REQUIRED <br />for the intended use. <br />viii. (Are both vi and viii necessary ?) <br />x. Whether the hydraulic drop (head) in the stream reach is appropriate. A high qual� <br />xiii. Whether the water depth in the stream reaches at least a minimum depth needed to <br />fleeA a bea (Q. 1 §fn (62) 1 1 1 depth), the fniain+um depth needed to take paddl-e <br />stfakes (0.5m (20") depth), and the minimum depth to safe!), per-&fm afl Eskime r- <br />FOR THE IDENTIFIED REASONABLE <br />RECREATION EXPERIENCE; <br />xiv. Whether the sexrse RICD is located in a stream reach . her-° it meets at least <br />ver -age .,,:aai, WITH AN ADEQUATE WIDTH FOR THE IDENTIFIED <br />REASONABLE RECREATION EXPERIENCE. The minimum passable width of 1.2 <br />use the stfeamflew as effieiefidy as possible- <br />xv. Whether the course is located in a stream reach where it-is THERE EXISTS at least <br />the minimum recommended course length of 240,.,., (790 f-.); and, <br />C. <br />The nature and extent of the access required for the REASONABLE RECREATION <br />EXPERIENCE for which a RICD is being sought; <br />iii. Any impediments to the Applicant obtaining access determined necessary for the <br />intended we REASONABLE RECREATION EXPERIENCE. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.