Laserfiche WebLink
two <br /> 1► For the reasons suggested below, the Staff recommends incorporating Rule 6, 6a and 6 b into <br /> Rule 7. See Rule 7 below. <br /> b These determinations are beyond the scope of CWCB's statutory authority and expertise. <br /> (Pueblo) <br /> b SB 216 does not require the CWCB board to determine whether an application meets basic <br /> requirements to be considered an RICD. The water court should make this determination. <br /> (Aspen). <br /> b "Basic requirements" to be considered an RICD are not made clear by the rules, so this rule <br /> to determine whether an application meets such basic requirements fails a `clarity' test. The <br /> water court not the CWCB has the authority for such determination. (Gunnison County) <br /> b Rule 6 should be deleted(suggestions below on where to include 6a and 6b). The <br /> introductory sentence is inappropriate as determination of whether this meets basic <br /> requirements to be considered an RICD rests with the water court. (NCWCD, CSU) <br /> b CWCB does not have authority to determine whether an application meets the basic <br /> requirements of an RICD nor is such a determination necessary for CWCB to consider policy <br /> issues delegated to it. Rule 6 is an attempt to allow CWCB to establish substantive limit on <br /> the amount of water for an RICD and adequacy of control structures. Such determinations are <br /> purview of water court, not the CWCB. (CRWCD) <br /> • �► The Sta recomme . • . . . <br /> ff nds making the changes as explained above in Rule 6 and below in Rule 7. <br /> SB 216 does not indicate that the CWCB is to determine whether amount of water sought is <br /> minimum amount necessary. Such amount should be determined by intent of application and <br /> by the water court. (Pueblo) <br /> c An attempt to set substantive limit on amount of water for an RICD by imposing requirement <br /> that the amount be the"minimum amount of water necessarv._".but uch a limitation ie not <br /> authorized by SB 216 and is still within the authority of the water court. (Gunnison County) <br /> b Determination of the minimum amount of water needed to provide a reasonable recreation <br /> experience is beyond the rule making power and expertise of the CWCB, should not be the <br /> subject of a relatively short administrative hearing, and should rest with the water court. <br /> (Golden, Breckenridge and ERWSD) <br /> b Move Rule 6a to 7a or as a new subparagraph under Rule 7 that addresses the"other factors <br /> as may be deemed appropriate for evaluation..." as set forth in the statute. (NCWCD, CSU) <br /> b Delete 6a in its entirety. It improperly infringes on the water court's authority. Appears that <br /> the CWCB seeks any opportunity to impose a value judgement about reasonableness of <br /> intended use and state an opinion about whether it approves or not of quantity of flow <br /> requested. SB 216 authorizes CWCB to make findings about specific policy issues. Cannot <br /> - --- make binding legal-conclusions on definition of RICD-or minimum-stream-flow because the <br /> proper statutory authority does not exist. The CWCB should not try to transform opinion and <br /> arguments into fact or law through RICD rules (CRWCD) <br /> 7 <br />