Laserfiche WebLink
wo The Staff recommends making the changes as explained above in Rule 6 and below in Rule 7. <br /> SB 216 does not suggest that CWCB should determine if the applicant is diverting, capturing <br /> and controlling the water. This is the role of the water court. (Pueblo) <br /> b This determination, a factual issue not to be determined in a limited hearing setting, is within <br /> the province of the Water Court, not the CWCB. (Golden, Breckenridge and ERWSD) <br /> * Rule 6b could be added to 7b, changing the word `location' to `between specific points'. <br /> (NCWCD, CSU) <br /> * Delete 6b as it is within purview of water court. This is an issue'CWCB may address as party <br /> to a water court proceeding,but it is improper to transform opinion into a presumptive <br /> finding of fact through RICD rules. (CRWCD) <br /> .REQUIRED FINDINGS <br /> The Board is required to make certain findings about RICDs. If the Board determines that the Ro�J <br /> amount of water sought for a RICD does not represent the minimum 44-PQ-6-- <br /> necessary to provide a reasonable recreation experience in and on the water and/or that the <br /> RICD does not divert, capture, and control water in its natural course or location with <br /> physical control structures, then the Board shall note that determination in its written <br /> recommendation to the water court and specifically preserve the Board's authority to argue <br /> these issues in water court. giant-to-Section 37-92-102(6)(b), C.R.S. (2001),requires the <br /> Boarder to make the following findings: <br /> 1■ The Staff recommends amending this language, as stated above under Rule 6, but otherwise <br /> keeping this language as it is. <br /> = The Board is authorized to establish additional factors to those set out in 37-92-102(6)(b)(I- <br /> V). However, the additional factors in Rule 7 do not identify why the factors are needed nor <br /> identify a standard by which factors are to be reviewed or how recommendations based on <br /> those factors will be made. (Gunnison County) <br /> b Language of the rules must track the language of SB 216 precisely. Potential issues of <br /> improper_expansion_oflegislatiuthority-might e .•- .- . ! . g7 tracks,but not <br /> precisely, the statute. The language "but is not limited to" (related to consideration of factors) <br /> set forth in various subsections must be deleted as violation of Section 6(b)(VI), which <br /> requires that all factors be expressly set forth in the Rules. Many factors set forth in <br /> subsections are inappropriate and beyond the authority of CWCB to impose. (Golden, <br /> Breckenridge, ERWSD) <br /> b Appreciate the fact that the Rules no longer require applicant to submit information for Rules <br /> 7 and 8, but concern remains that an application will be denied because of lack of <br /> information. Rules should provide more clarification as to what `adequate information' is and <br /> to what extent an applicant has the responsibility to provide information pertaining to factors <br /> in Rule 7. (UGRWCD) <br /> b Suggested wording changes to reflect C.R.S. 37-92-102(6)(b)(VI) in which the Board is <br /> required not to make findings but required ttconsiderthe identified factors. Delete "is <br /> required to make the following findings:" and replace with "shall consider the following <br /> factors and make written findings thereon:" (NCWCD, CSU) <br /> • <br /> 8 <br />