Laserfiche WebLink
• b Sections iii and v are based on inappropriate speculation about future,unknown conditions <br /> and are not relevant to Board's recommendation to the water court. No other water right <br /> application is subject to such speculation. Recommending denial of a current application for <br /> a beneficial use based on future, speculative use is contrary to Colorado water law and goal <br /> of"maximum utilization of the waters of the State." (NWCCOG-QQ) <br /> g> Sections iii, iv and v are contrary to Colorado law and must be deleted. Go far beyond <br /> whether an RICD would impair Colorado's ability to fully develop compact entitlements and <br /> suggest RICD appropriations could be limited or denied on basis of future speculative uses. <br /> Disapproval of current uses on the basis of speculative, future uses is contrary to goal of <br /> maximizing beneficial use. Colorado Supreme Court has held that current appropriations <br /> cannot be defeated by speculative future uses,Board of County Commissioners of Arapahoe <br /> County v. United States, 891 U.S. 952, 962 (Colo. 1995) (water availability must be based on <br /> river conditions existing at the time of appropriation) or by policy restraints rooted in concern <br /> for quantities that should be left for future water users. Id. at 972 (water court cannot, in the <br /> absence of statutory authority, deny a legitimate appropriation based on public policy). SB <br /> 216 did not authorize the denial of RICDs based on potential future uses. (CRWCD) <br /> iv. The existence of suitable downstream points of diversion or storage for consumptive <br /> beneficial uses before the water leaves the state;and <br /> 11 The Staff recommends keeping the language as is. <br /> b See CRWCD comment under iii above. <br /> v. Exchange opportunities within the state that may be adversely impacted by the <br /> existence of the RICD; <br /> IF► The Staff recommends keeping the language as is. <br /> b Inappropriate to consider exchange opportunities. Until an exchange is an established water <br /> right,it is not entitled to consideration. (Pueblo) <br /> b See NWCCOG-QQ comment under iii above. <br /> the RICD. . . . . _ . . . . . . . _ . . . <br /> a+ The Staff recommends deleting this item as repetitive of the heading 7.a. <br /> b Delete "at the point of the RICD" as it is unclear what the language encompasses. (NCWCD, <br /> CSU) <br /> b Unclear what the Board will be considering here. (N ■ CCOG-QQ) <br /> g> Section should be deleted as it is unclear how RICDs can "adversely impact" Colorado's <br /> compact entitlements. Violates APA requirement that regulation be clear to extent practical. <br /> If question is whether RICD would adversely impact Colorado's ability to develop compact <br /> entitlement at point of the RICD, it is a restatement of General Assembly's question and <br /> should be deleted (whether RICD would impair ability to fully develop and place to <br /> consumptive beneficial use its compact entitlements). Since RICDs are nonconsumptive, <br /> cannot foresee how-compact entitlements-could-be impacted unless RICD requires Colorado <br /> to exceed compact delivery obligations at the state line. (CRWCD) <br /> • <br /> 10 <br />