Misc documents inside sleeve - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . to CoG RECREATIONAL IN-STREAM DIVERSION PROPOSED RULE RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO SECTION 6 After introductory paragraph to Section 6, amend to read as follows: a. Whether the adjudication and administration of the RICD would impair the ability of Colorado to fully develop and place to consumptive Beneficial Use its Compact Entitlements. The Board, in making its findings may consider, but is not limited to, the following: i. The proximity of the RICD reach to the state lip • ii. Exchange opportunities necessary to c'mpact developm- • at will be adversely affected by the existence of the RICS. b. Whether the RICD appropriation is for an appropriate reach of stream for the intended use. The Board, in making this finding, may consider, but is not limited ot, the following: i. The existence of physical characteristics of the reach that would preclude the intended use. ii. Reasons that the reach cannot be adequately measured and administered. iii. The likelihood that the RICD will cause damage from flooding. c. Whether there is access for the recreational in-channel use. The Board, in making this finding, may consider, but is not limited to the following: i. Legal or physical bars to access to the intended use.. ii. Where access to the reach of stream where the intended use would be located is on public lands, the ownership, leasehold,permit or other legal interest held by or available to the applicant that would allow access to the intended use. d. Whether the exercise of the RICD would cause material injury to existing ISF water rights. The Board, in making this finding, may consider, but is not limited to, the following: i. The nature and extent of the ISF in any reach affected by the RICD. ii. The likelihood that the RICD would negatively impact the natural environment protected by the ISF.