Laserfiche WebLink
• '1- • • - • : - : • •: , • •: • - • ' ; • : -•: . . . ; • : <br /> RICD ,. ,ilaN„. <br /> a' The Staff recomm;nds removal of the availability portion of Rule 7(b)(v) as repetitive of the <br /> heading in Rule VThe Staff further recommends moving the frequency and duration of the <br /> requested amounts into Rule 7(e)(vii)as it better relates to that factor. <br /> b Inappropriate for CWCB to determine whether water requested is available as it is outside its <br /> authority and expertise. It is responsibility of the State and Division of Engineers. (Pueblo) <br /> b An improper factor for CWCB to consider. It has nothing to do with whether stream reach is <br /> appropriate. Water availability may be proper area of inquiry for Water Court but not <br /> CWCB. Limited hearing to be held before CWCB is inadequate, nor does CWCB have <br /> resources or expertise. An extended hearing to adequately handle this issue would be an <br /> unnecessary and pointless duplication of the Water Court's proceedings. No basis in law for <br /> imposing greater water availability standards on RICDs than any other water right. No need <br /> to show "duration" or "frequency" of availability so long as water is available at some time. <br /> Thousands of water rights in the state are "flood rights." Limited duration or frequency of <br /> such rights are not grounds for their denial, nor are they proper grounds for denial, or <br /> recommendation of denial, of an RICD. (Golden,Breckenridge, ERWSD) <br /> * Modify by deleting "Whether the amounts of water requested in the RICD application are <br /> available for appropriation, and with what". Start sentence with "The frequency..." and add <br /> "that applied for" between "duration" and "amounts". Availability of water is more <br /> appropriate for the water court to determine, though information on water availability will • <br /> assist Board in application of statutory criteria. The "frequency and duration" issue is <br /> appropriately one of the "other factors" the Board can consider pursuant to C.R.S. 37-02- <br /> 102(6)(b)(VI). For example,may be inappropriate to decree RICD if water only available for <br /> a couple of days all year. (NCWCD, CSU) <br /> b Delete. Does not have appropriate statutory authority. Inappropriate for CWCB to consider <br /> water availability. Authority not delegated by the General Assembly and determination not <br /> necessary for CWCB to address six policy issues identified in SB 216. CWCB not in a <br /> position to make a finding of fact with respectto water-availability-Primary r $f <br /> the water court. (CRWCD) <br /> Whether the RICD will affect flooding,flood control, or the one-hundred year flood <br /> elevations;and, <br /> N The Staff recommends keeping this language as is. The CWCR has statutory authority <br /> regarding flood control issues and is uniquely qualified to make such determinations. <br /> b Flooding issues would be subsumed into issue of whether stream reach is subject to control. <br /> No need for independent criterion. (CRWCD) <br /> 10 The Staff recommends moving Rule 7(b)(viii) to Rule 7(e)where it better reflects the intent of <br /> ---the factor. ----- - -- --- <br /> --- ---- -.-- ----- -- -- - --- - <br /> F i n di n g s as to whether RICD will impact other water users as specified here exceeds <br /> authority and expertise of CWCB. Factor suggests CWCB will consider potential injury to <br /> other water users. Not CWCB's function to protect existing uses, potentially injured water <br /> 12 <br />