Laserfiche WebLink
THE SOUTHWESTERN 'WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT <br />Mdurnipnl Un :krSmmUw:afD xlalnrrnrAndL `Gr5Cr4'ArinntY.•rpr.5tiMM3VI•i 4 <br />UN 3UA V AN[) T:(J1.'1RF.S k1VHkS A N171'fIr IR TRITLETAR Ix; <br />I\ Ci111'rHWF�rhltrc t "iSI.I }ItF Ix: <br />Wrest Building - 841 Second Avenue <br />Post Office Box 475 <br />DURANGO, COLOULDO 811307 <br />(471)) 217-1302 *Fax (970) 359 -8423 <br />August '49, 2005 <br />Rod KubDxloh, Diraator <br />Colorado Water Conservuticn Board <br />1313 Sherman Strut, Room 721 <br />Umver, Colorado 802W <br />Re: Comments on Rropo,ed RICD Rules Modifications <br />Dear Mr, ICuhatich: <br />This letter is to provide co mrnrenta by the Snutt western Water Conservation Digtriet (SWCD) <br />wric,wning the proposed rnodific•ations to the CTJwCB's Recreation hi Channol .Diversion (RICD) <br />rats. <br />on the whole the proposed modifications appear to provide mote and specific criteria that the <br />CWCB will use to review RICD applications and commeilL to the 'Water Court. SWCD is <br />supportive of modifications that require RICD's to meet the same standard as water right <br />anulications for other ourooscs. <br />SW CD has the following sll es:ialls to further elan €y the rules. <br />Section 7.b - Why not just state the depth of the reach of the stream has to be at least (0.1I <br />to 1.0 in (3 to 3.3 ft), e11F.minating, ft ether two dVth criteria, which are less than 33 fcut <br />deep, <br />Section 7.c-vi. and x - What is the difference between fnese two subparagraphs? <br />Section 7.e. — add a criteria — "Whether the RICD wit1 make the river basin water critical <br />anri ti, crri}Te= 1-hi: rA.gl ill ins impact ran exist{rig wnix r rights and usem :" <br />Section 7,f v. — vlodi fy the term "pre -RICD" to "non- R.ICD ". <br />Section (f) and ) have the same introdu mry paragTaph —eve recommend striking the <br />introductory paragraph for Section (9) and staking (g)�i) tho last subparagraph for section <br />(1), renumbered to be (v1), <br />