CWCB RICD Rulemaking 2001

• Description: Documents related to RICD Rulemaking 2001
• State: CO
• Basin: Statewide
• Date: 11/8/2001
• Author: CWCB
• Title: CWCB RICD Rulemaking 2001
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Board Memo

• 4. Section revised to include only factors required by SB 216. But CWCB's interpretation of
these factors results in the inclusion of criteria with no statutory basis in SB 216 and
conflictive with other laws. See discussion in subsections below. (CRWCD)
7a. 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 this finding, may consider, but is not limited to, the following factors:
1* The Staff recommends keeping this language as it is because it tracks the statutory language.
▪ Recognize that finding is provided for in SB 216,but it cannot be made without
impermissible speculation, which is contrary to "first in time, first in right" foundation of
appropriation system. In the absence of a filed application, conclusions regarding future
consumptive uses are speculation, as are criteria iii—vi. Factor is contrary to `maximum
beneficial use' and emphasizes view of concern to Aspen, that recreational uses of water are
less important or valuable than other uses. (Aspen)
* In-channel uses could impact water users; however, SB 216 declared RICDs to be a
beneficial water use. As such, owners of decreed RICDs have the right to assert injury in •
subsequent proceedings, including exchange. General Assembly did not make RICDs
subservient to consumptive beneficial uses nor was CWCB allowed to determine whether
RICD would make it more difficult to decree future beneficial use. Only relevant inquiry
under this factor is whether the volume of water controlled by RICD in priority would
require Colorado to exceed its interstate delivery requirements, given the ability of
constitutionally-preferred uses to condemn a RICD to effect compact development.
(CRWCD)
• i. The amount and location of remainin g unappropriated Compact ro riated Com act Entitlement waters in
the basin in question and the RICD point of diversion;
1+ The Staff recommends keeping this language as it is, as it is required by the statute.
b Should be deleted because the information requested here may be partially relevant to a water
availability determination but is not necessary to determine whether the RICD would impair
Colorado's ability to fully develop and place tozonsumptivabeneficialuse its-compact
entitlements. (CRWCD)
ii. The proximity of the RICD Oatiito the state line;
I► The Staff recommends changing the language as suggested.
b Add"of the RICD reach" between `proximity' and `to'. (NCWCD, CSU)
iii. The proximity of the RICD to suitable upstream points of diversion or storage which
may be utilized by those who would place the water to consumptive beneficial use;
J► The Staff recommends making no revisions to this Rule or to Rules iv and v. The General
Assembly specifically provided that the Board is to make recommendations about a RICD
based, in part, on how that RICD will affect the State's ability to fully develop and place to
consumptive beneficial use its compact entitlements. The factors of whether there are
suitable storage reservoirs and/or diversion points located either upstream or downstream of
the proposed RICD, and whether there are exchange opportunities that will be affected by
the proposed RICD are directly related to this finding.
S
9•