Laserfiche WebLink
April 11, 2008 <br />Page 23 <br />reconstruction. If a stream reach is considered suitable for WSR, the inclusion of additional <br />conditions in special use permits could lead to major increased expense for water users and the <br />possibility of costly by -pass flow conditions in the permits. <br />b. Parties filing for changes of water rights may jeopardize their <br />existing right -of -way or easements if Special Use Permit terms and conditions are too onerous. <br />C. Where there are conditional water rights on USFS or BLM land <br />from a stream segment proposed for suitability designation, development of water rights would <br />become much more difficult with such a designation. <br />d. WSR suitability designation could impair the ability of project <br />sponsors to qualify for funding in the next four years under SB 179. <br />e. Suitability designations may violate the Colorado Constitution, <br />Article XVI, Sections 5, 6 and 7, which describe the waters of the State as belonging to all the <br />citizens of Colorado, to whom the right to the use of the unappropriated waters of the State shall <br />never be denied. <br />f. Two areas where extensive conflicts with water rights development <br />will occur include: (i) stream segments below numerous water rights, and (ii) reaches of streams <br />just added to stream segments studied earlier, pursuant to Congressional legislation. <br />g. New Restrictions on Water Development. WSR suitability <br />designations will negatively impact current irrigation practices. The SWCD is especially <br />concerned that Draft EIS sections with regard to conflicts with water uses, alternative means to <br />protect natural stream values, Areas of Consideration and land percentages be thoroughly revised <br />in the Final Plan and EIS. The Draft EIS WSR suitability analysis process does not provide <br />sufficient guidance for individual water rights owners of the possible conflicts that new <br />management strategies imposed by a WSR suitability designation would raise. <br />F. Draft Plan does not Appropriately Establish the Percentage of Land in Private <br />versus Federal Ownership as required for WSR Designations. L The Draft presents two figures <br />with regard to the percentage of Federally owned land in river corridors: 1) the percentage of <br />federal land bordering the river, in miles of river, and 2) the percentage of land within the 1/2 <br />mile eligible river corridor, i.e. 1/4 mile on each side of an eligible river. We believe the second <br />land ownership breakdown is misleading in a number of instances, for the following reasons. <br />1. The federal government need not own any land along the river in order to <br />own land within the corridor. Therefore, the government may not own any land that will be <br />directly affected by river corridor activities. <br />2. Some portions of eligible segments do not meet statutory eligibility <br />designation requirements. The Draft Plan has deceptively combined segments to determine land <br />