Laserfiche WebLink
Sellers, Suzanne <br /> From: Kowalski, Ted <br /> Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 3:21 PM <br /> To: Gimbel, Jennifer <br /> Cc: Schneider, Susan; Sellers, Suzanne <br /> Subject: RICD talking points <br /> So the main points of the Staffs statements are these: <br /> 1. The Board is required to make three specific findings of fact relating to the RICD (whether the ISFs will be injured by <br /> the RICD; whether the RICD promotes maximum utilization; and whether the RICD would materially injure the State's <br /> ability to fully use its compact entitlements). We recommend that the Board find that the Applicant has failed to <br /> demonstrate that its proposed decree would promote maximum utilization and further find that the Applicant's proposed <br /> decree does materially injure the State's ability to fully use its compact entitlements. <br /> 2. The main reason for the Staffs recommendation is that the Applicant is seeking more than 50% of the average annual <br /> daily volume (which triggers additional requirements including the requirement that the Applicant only seek three different <br /> flow rates for three different time periods) and the Applicant is seeking 6 flow rates for different time periods. <br /> 3. By doubling the no. of flow rates and time periods, the Applicant is essentially doubling the no. of days that the RICD <br /> can call for this water right. <br /> 4. This is the first time this new statute is being applied and we cannot ignore the plain language of the statute...nor can <br /> the Applicant. <br /> 5. Consideration of the inclusion of a term and condition similar to the ISF condition about when a Colorado Compact <br /> curtailment is in effect is worth considering. <br /> 6. We ought to use this opporunity to make strong findings of fact to the court, and then defend them at the water court <br /> level. Negotiation with the Applicant, if Pitkin County is willing, will always be an option as we prepare for water cout. <br /> All for now. <br />