CWCB RICD Rulemaking 2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

its findings to the Water Court" within 90 days after the time period for filing of statements of opposition has expired. This is a fixed and statutory deadline. The Board cannot seek, and the Water Court cannot grant, an extension. The Court can extend deadlines imposed by the Court itself, but not statutory deadlines where, as here, the statute itself does not give them power. (Golden, Breckenridge, ERWSD) General Comments 1+ The Staff supports the proposed revisions to the Rules. Many of the general comments regarding the heavy burdens that the rules place on Applicants are without foundation. The CWCB's intent is that Applicants will come to the CWCB early in the process, prior to an application being filed so that the Staff and the Applicant can work together to develop an application that conforms with SB 216. Making the proposed changes to the statement of basis and purpose and making the factors and submissions permissive rather than mandatory should allay these concerns. Moreover, the CWCB's recommendation to a water court is merely that—a recommendation that is subject to rebuttal by any party. Staff acknowledges Gunnison County's request for a regulatory analysis and will comply with the pertinent APA deadline. 4 Pueblo cannot support the rules as proposed. SB 216 recognizes RICDs as a beneficial use. The proposed rules appear to favor consumptive uses over RICDs, a result not intended by the General Assembly and contrary to appropriation system and Colorado water law. The rules contain factors that exceed the statutory authority and historic expertise of the CWCB. The rules impose unnecessary burdens on applicants not required of applicants for other • types of water rights, making the RICD process unduly cumbersome. b Aspen shares concerns in comments expressed by others related to the staff report and hearing process. Some of the proposed rules go well beyond the factors specifically set forth in SB 216. Because CWCB's findings of fact are presumptively correct, this incursion into the water court's function of finding of facts after being presented with evidence from the applicant and opposers is of great concern. Gunnison County:Presents a-formal request,pursuant to 24 4-1-03(4.5)(a),SRS.-for-the CWCB to issue a regulatory analysis of the proposed rules to be available at least five days before the rule-making hearing. Lists six factors the analysis must contain. Presents a formal request,pursuant to 24-4-103(8)(b), that no rule be issued by the CWCB unless it is first submitted by the CWCB to the attorney general for his opinion as to its constitutionality and legality. Gunnison County's comments are framed in the context of 24-4-103(4)(b) C.R.S. and 24-4-103(8)(a) (both referenced in their letter). b Golden,Breckenridge and Eagle River Water and Sanitation District. The Statute was a legislative compromise that recognized the validity of RICDs, limited who could appropriate RICDs, left adjudication of RICDs to the water court and gave CWCB and advisory role on limited issues. Proposed Rules, an improvement over earlier drafts, continue to impermissibly expand the CWCB's role in RICD applications. Particular, purport to limit -- -- RIClls to the "mimmum'-amour o wa er for a "reasonable' recreational expeience,and—__ define a "reasonable" recreational experience to be that of an "average" user. Nothing in the Statute authorizes CWCB to impose such limitations, which unlawfully discriminate against RICDs, ignore the intent of the appropriator and impinge on authority of Water Court. 26