Laserfiche WebLink
i <br /> District and CSU do not believe intent was to protect future upstream RICDs. (NCWCD, <br /> CSU) <br /> 4 This consideration is irrelevant to whether an RICD will promote "maximum utilization" <br /> because it is too speculative. (NWCCOG-QQ) <br /> ii. Whether there are any probable future changes, transfers, or exchanges of water <br /> rights from points of diversion downstream of the reach affected by the RICD to points <br /> upstream of, or in the reach affected by the RICD; <br /> •► The Staff recommends making the clarifying change to this language. <br /> e > See Pueblo comment in 7(e)(i). <br /> s 'N c> The limitation, of an RICD to the minimum amount of water necessary (as set forth in Rule <br /> e N. 7, including this subfactor), goes far beyond the opening statement in Section 2 that Rules are <br /> only intended to set forth procedure. It is an example of how the Rules are substantive <br /> provisions designed to limit the type, amount and extent of the RICDs authorized by SB 216, <br /> and thus goes beyond the rule making power of the CWCB. (Golden, Breckenridge, <br /> ERWSD) <br /> b This consideration is irrelevant to whether an RICD will promote "maximum utilization" <br /> because it is too speculative. (NWCCOG-QQ) <br /> t <br /> Whether a reasonable means is to be utilized toddivert, capture and control the water <br /> -0 fora RICD so as to minimize its call upon the river and avoid waste; <br /> 40 . . . .. . . . . _. . . . . . . . . . .. „ . <br /> 1► The Staff recommends deleting this language for the reasons suggested below. <br /> b Delete. Inadequate support in the statute for this provision. If there is a decree for 'piscatorial' <br /> use that'may be adversely impacted, the holder of the decree could raise the issue. If the <br /> fishery and riparian environment uses are not decreed, this factor could be interpreted as the <br /> application of"public trust" concepts,contrary to Colorado law. (NCWCD, CSU) <br /> 4 Not clear how This_consi_derrat on-r-elates to "promot[ing}maximum utilization." (N-WC£OG <br /> QQ) <br /> v:-iv. Whether a reasonable demand exists for the recreational activity in question as <br /> determined by levels of current use and estimates of future use;and <br /> M The Staff recommends not changing this language because it is clearly a relevant factor that <br /> the Board should consider. <br /> b Appears to substitute CWCB's judgement for that of the applicant by giving CWCB authority <br /> to determine what level of participation constitutes a reasonable demand for the recreational <br /> activity. Statue does not suggest CWCB should make this determination, which is best left to <br /> the applicant. (Pueblo) <br /> b It is up to the appropriator, not the CWCB, to determine whether a "reasonable demand" <br /> exists-for-the recreational activity in question:Highlights more-general comment thatihe key <br /> element in the appropriation is the intent of the appropriator and that the appropriator and no <br /> governmental agency determines the purpose of the appropriation. (Golden, Breckenridge, <br /> ERWSD) <br /> II <br /> 16 <br />