Laserfiche WebLink
c Replace "preclude" with "promote." "Promote" is used in SB 216. The use of"preclude" <br /> effectuates a fairly significant change in statutory intent; it provides whether adjudication and <br /> administration of the RICD would promote maximum utilization of waters of the State as <br /> referenced in paragraph (a) of subsection(1) of this section. C.R.S. 37-92-102(6)(b)(V), <br /> paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of C.R.S. 37-92-102 references the integration of <br /> underground water tributary to a stream with surface flows. However the Northern District <br /> and CSU do not believe this cross-reference was intended to read narrowly as encompassing <br /> only this groundwater/surface water interface. Rather,the word "promote" was utilized <br /> because it was the intent of the legislature to reference the concept of"maximum utilization" <br /> as interpreted by the Colorado courts as a factor to be considered by the Board. (NCWCD, <br /> CSU) <br /> b This factor does not say the same thing as the statute. Use of"preclude" rather than <br /> "promote" changes meaning of the statue. Should be rewritten with "promote". In general, <br /> the considerations under subsection (e) seem overly broad and speculative. They call for <br /> speculation and take into consideration information not relevant to whether an RICD will <br /> promote "maximum utilization." (NWCCOG-QQ) <br /> b Must be significantly revised to comply with legislation authorizing the RICD rules. SB 216 <br /> states that the CWCB shall consider whether an RICD would promote maximum utilization <br /> of waters of the state as referenced in paragraph (a) of subsection (1)of this section. C.R.S. <br /> 37-92-102(1)(a) refers to maximum utilization in the context of integrating the appropriation, <br /> use and administration of tributary groundwater with surface water. Thus,the relevant <br /> question is whether the RICD would limit the development of additional groundwater from <br /> the stream's aquifer to provide for conjunctive use of groundwater and existing surface water <br /> • supplies. This would involve an analysis of the stream/aquifer relationship within the RICD <br /> reach and whether the RICD would prevent development of that aquifer for conjunctive use <br /> with surface supplies. If the RICD would limit or prevent such development of the aquifer, <br /> the CWCB may consider whether the means of diversion could be modified to decrease its <br /> impact on the development of the aquifer and still achieve the intended use. Rather than <br /> focus on policy issue identified by the General Assembly,the Proposed Rules distort the <br /> issue-to-create-an-opportunity-for the CWCB-to-address a-variety of inappropriate-subjects, <br /> includic , once again the • npact of RICD on future, speculative uses. (CRWCD) <br /> Whether there are any probable future upstream junior appropriations for <br /> c se or storage; <br /> M The Staff recomm.pn s nrbli-ng the word "rnnsumptive" before the word "use", but otherwise <br /> not changing this language. <br /> * Sections i and ii allow the CWCB to consider "probable" water uses, storage, transfers, <br /> changes or exchanges. Only existing water rights are entitled to consideration. CWCB should <br /> not speculate concerning future uses, which anyhow would be junior rights. Considering <br /> "probable" uses implies RICDs are disfavored and should not be granted if there are possible <br /> consumptive uses, decreed or not. This is counter to system of appropriation, Colorado Law <br /> and SB-216. To consider such "probable"uses require speculative determinations based on <br /> conjecture, rather than objective, and reviewable, conclusions. (Pueblo) <br /> a Add"direct" before "use" and add "which would be negatively impacted by the existence of <br /> the RICD" after "storage". "Direct" simplifies intent of this provision, for example, Northern <br /> 15 <br />