Comments of the West Slope Water Network Regarding the CWCB RICD Rulemaking August 2005

Home Browse Search

1 August 28, 2005 Via Federal Express and Electronic Mail Mr. Ted Kowalski Colorado Water Conservation Board 1313 Sherman Street, Room 721 Denver, Colorado 80203 Re: Comments of the West Slope Water Network regarding the Colorado Water Conservation Board RICD Rulemakina Dear Mr. Kowalski: Thank you, for this opportunity to comment. The San Juan Citizens Alliance is a regional conservation group located in the Four Corners area with about 600 members, most of which are located in the region. One of our areas of interest is the quality and quantity of the water in the streams and lakes of the state. In addition to our own concerns these comments reflect the interests of the West Slope Water Network, which consists of The San Juan Citizens Alliance, The High Country Citizens Alliance, The Western Colorado Congress, and Colorado Trout Unlimited. Another representative will make Colorado Trout Unlimited's comments. Our concerns are twofold. One is the protection of the natural resource of the state. The other is the law governing water and the ways in which the law is administered to further the goals of the citizens of the state. The creation of policies and rules governing the application of the laws, which are an expression of the will of the citizens of the state, are of great importance to our organizations. It is important that the implementation of the law is in keeping with the intent of the legislature, as well as with the precedents set by the courts and the historical practices that influence us. The proposed rule is problematic to our organizations in three ways. It requires that an applicant for a conditional decree designs its facility before recommending the decree to the courts. It overreaches the Board's authority and does not reflect recent Colorado State Supreme Court rulings or the apparent will of the legislature at the time that SB 216 was enacted., It lacks any consideration of the economic and environmental concerns that should be regarded in the consideration of the "optimizing of maximum use ". There are other concerns that we have with the way the proposed rule is written such as duplication in some of the sub categories in number 7 and some legal points that should be given consideration. However, as lay people we will address the broader perspectives of history, fairness, and the propriety of the role that the CWCB has attempted to carve out for itself. First, under the second required finding, concerning the appropriate reach, new sub - factors v, vi, and vii would seem to require that a proposed course be designed in advance of the application. In order to determine whether or not the structures would adversely affect flooding, it appears to be necessary to have the course structures designed and engineered before this question can be fully answered. This would put the applicant in the position of spending many thousands of dollars on a course for which the right might not be granted and would impede the ability of