Laserfiche WebLink
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENT REGARDING RICD DRAFT RULES <br /> AS PUBLISHED IN THE OCTOBER 10, 2001 COLORADO REGISTER <br /> 1. TITLE <br /> Rules Concerning Recreational In-Channel Diversions, adopted pursuant to section 37-92- <br /> 102, C.R.S. (2001), and hereinafter referred to as the "RICD Rules." <br /> 2. PURPOSE OF RULES <br /> The purpose of these Rules is to set forth the procedures to be followed by: 1)Applicants for <br /> Recreational In-Channel Diversions;and 2) the Colorado Water Conservation Board when <br /> making Findings of Fact and recommendations to a water court regarding Recreational In- <br /> Channel Diversions (hereinafter referred to as "RICDs"). In addition, the purpose of these <br /> Rules is to provide iuidance about the type of information that will assist the Board in makinj' <br /> its findinuis and recommendation to the water court. By this reference the Board incorporates. <br /> the Basis and Purpose statement prepared and adopted at the time of the rulemaking. A copy <br /> of this document is on file at the Board office. <br /> 1+ The Staff recommends that Rule 2 be redrafted, as indicated above, to resolve the conflict <br /> between the stated purpose and the actual purpose of the rules as identified below. <br /> b Comment that there is a conflict between the purpose as stated in Rule 2 and the actual <br /> purpose of the rules as written. Rule 2 states purpose to set forth procedures to be followed <br /> by applicant and CWCB. Rules seem to go beyond identification of procedure and establish <br /> `substantive' policies and review criteria. Conflict should be resolved. (Gunnison County) <br /> b Rules go beyond establishing a process as stated in purpose. (NWCCOG-QQ) <br /> 3. STATUTORY AUTHORITY <br /> The General Assembly specifically recognized the appropriation and adjudication of RICDs by <br /> local governmental entities,pursuant to sections 37-92-102, 37-92-103, & 37-92-305, C.R.S. <br /> (2001). The statutory authority for these Rules is found at section 37-92-102(6)(b)(VI), C.R.S. <br /> (2001). • - • !, • • - . '... . • • . • • , . . , . . , • . : . • . <br /> promulgating these Rules, the Board assumes no liability related to RICDs and expressly does <br /> not waive its sovereign immunity under Article 10, Title 24, C.R.S. <br /> 10 The Staff recommends that the Board accept the change suggested below. <br /> b Suggestion to delete the sentence "Article 10, Title 24, C.R.S. makes certain exceptions to <br /> the sovereign immunity of and contains provisions regarding potential liability of state and <br /> local governmental entities." Considered unnecessary and confusing. (NCWCD and CSU) <br /> 4. DEFINITIONS <br /> 1+ The Staff recommends that the Board not define "maximum utilization of waters of the State" <br /> and "basin." The Board discussed whether to define these terms at several of its meetings <br /> and there seemed to be a general consensus that maximum utilization is a court created <br /> concept and that it should not be defined. Moreover, because the term "basin" only appears <br /> once in the Rules and its meaning is basic, it does not need to be defined. <br /> b Suggestion to include in definitions `maximum utilization of waters of the State' and `basin'. <br /> (NWCCOG-QQ). <br /> 1111 <br /> 2 <br />