Laserfiche WebLink
4 <br />e. (Are vi and x both necessary ?) <br />f. Pursuant to section 37- 92- 102(6)(b)(VI), an additional factor that is appropriate for <br />evaluation of RICD& APPLICATIONS is whether the RICD meets the elements of <br />the definition of an RICD AS FOUND in section 37- 92- 103(10.3). that -THIS requires <br />the amount claimed to be the "minimum stream flow" AND THAT IT BE for a <br />reasonable recreation experience. The Board should consider the following factors in <br />determining whether the FLOWS SOUGHT IN THE RIGB- APPLICATION meet the <br />THIS definition. ,- <br />i. Whether the requested RICD is for flow rates that are for objectively <br />reasonable recreational experiences UNDER THE PARTICULAR FACTS IN <br />QUESTION; <br />ii. Whether the requested RICD is for the minimum NECESSARY stream flows <br />TO ACCOMPLISH APPLICANT'S objectively reasonable recreation <br />experience IN AND ON THE WATER, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT EACH <br />TYPE OF RECREATION EXPERIENCE THAT IS IDENTIFIED. <br />v. WHETHER THE REQUESTED FLOW AMOUNTS ARE REASONABLE <br />IN LIGHT OF THE STREAM INVOLVED AND THE AVAILABILITY OF <br />WATER WITHIN THE BASIN. <br />g. (Delete g in its entirety) <br />Explanation: <br />A number of the above changes simply add clarity to the Rule. Others are inserted in <br />order to meet the above referenced Supreme Court directives and the following <br />admonitions by the Court. <br />• "...we hold that the General Assembly intended for the CWCB to analyze the <br />application purely as submitted by the applicant, rather than to objectively <br />determine what recreation experience would be reasonable, and what <br />minimum stream flow would meet that recreational need." <br />• "Therefore, by its own rules, the CWCB may not look beyond an applicant's <br />sought recreation experience; nothing in the Board's definitions authorizes it <br />to consider the reasonableness of an applicant's intended recreation <br />experience or the efficacy of other, unintended recreation experiences." <br />4. Finally, it may be advisable for the Board to squarely address in the Statement of Basis and <br />Purpose its position in response to the Court's observation in footnote 8 of the decision that <br />"we deem it improper to defer to the CWCB's definition of a reasonable recreation <br />experience." This is partially accomplished in paragraph 4 of the draft. <br />Dated this ?tday of August, 2005. <br />City of Aurora <br />By: <br />