Laserfiche WebLink
users need to protect their interests through appropriate filings in water court. Whether a <br /> RICD will result in injury is a decision of the water court. (Pueblo) <br /> b Delete. Injury to other users should be determined by water court. If the Board has in mind <br /> other types of"impacts" that should be spelled out. (NCWCD, CSU) <br /> c Delete. Not responsibility of CWCB to protect existing water users. They are protected by <br /> prior appropriation doctrine. Potentially impacted users responsible for filing Statements of <br /> Opposition with water court and requesting conditions necessary to protect their rights. To <br /> the extent section is intended to address future water uses that may be impacted, it is <br /> irrelevant because RICD appropriations cannot be limited or denied based on speculation of <br /> future uses. (CRWCD) <br /> c. Whether there is access for recreational in-channel use. The Board, in making this <br /> finding, may consider, but is not limited to, the following factors: <br /> 10 The Staff recommends keeping this language as it is because it tracks the statutory language. <br /> b CWCB does not have authority to inquire into factors set forth in sections 7(c)(i)-(iii). Once <br /> applicant has demonstrated access to stream has or will be procured,inquiry should end. <br /> Determining "nature and extent of access required for the activity" or whether access is <br /> "readily available" is beyond authority and expertise of CWCB. Existence of impediments <br /> does not prevent applicant from obtaining access and should not be considered unless they <br /> make access impossible. Since entities authorized to undertake RICDs possess power of <br /> eminent domain, obtaining access will never be an insurmountable obstacle. (Pueblo) <br /> CWCB is required to determine whether there is access. Whether access is by pens it, <br /> ownership, or agreement is irrelevant to this finding. (Aspen) <br /> This section appropriately revised to focus on relevant questions with respect to whether <br /> there is access for recreational in-channel diversion use. (CRWCD) <br /> i. The nature and extent of the access required fbr the activity for which a RICD is being <br /> sought; <br /> ii. The ownership,leasehold, or other legal interest held_by_or readily-available -to--the <br /> Applicant for purposes of obtaining access; and, <br /> 10 The Staff recommends the language change for the reasons suggested below. <br /> b The word "readily" should be deleted. May be feasible though difficult or time-consuming to <br /> obtain access. The CWCB should only recommend denial based on access where it infeasible <br /> to obtain necessary access. (CRWCD) <br /> iii. Any impediments to the Applicant obtaining access determined necessary for the <br /> intended use. <br /> d. Whether the exercise of the RICD would cause material injury to existing ISF water <br /> rights : • • • : -. : • • ' : • • • : : • . The Board, in making this finding, <br /> may consider,-but-is not-Z-irnited to,th-e following-factors: ---- - --- - ---- ----- <br /> 1+ The Staff recommends that this language be changed to reflect the statutory language and to <br /> ensure that the rules are not repetitive, as suggested below. <br /> * Existing ISF are determined to be minimum flows, so there will generally be more water in <br /> • the river than the minimum flows. Only if direction and control of water itself adversely <br /> 13 <br />