BOARD00704

• Board Meeting Date: 3/21/2002
• Description: ISF Section - Pending Recreational In-Channel Diversion Applications
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

;

.

.

.

STATE OF COLORADO

Colorado Water Conservation Board

Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman Street, Room 721
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
www.cwcb.state.co.us

Bill Owens
Govemor

To:

CWCB Members

Greg E. Walcher
Executive Director

From: Ted Kowalski

Rod Kuharich
CWCB Director

Date: March 11,2002

Dan McAuliffe
Deputy Director

Re: Agenda Item 17, March 21-22, 2002 Board Meeting, Stream and Lake Protection-
Pending Recreational In-Channel Diversion (RICD) Applications

Background
In December, 2001, the Cities ofLongmont and Pueblo each filed for a Recreational In-Channel
Diversion ("RICD") water right. As you know, these are the first two entities that are seeking
RICDs after the passage of Senate Bill 216 8lld after the Board's adoption of the RICD rules. The
RICD rules provide that an applicant, any pOliy, or any Board member may request, within forty-
five days of the Application Receipt Date, that the Board hold a hearing on a pending application.
We have received written requests for a hem-ing in both cases. In addition, pursuant to Senate Bill
216 and the CWCB rules, the Board is required to file its findings of fact and recommendations
with the water court within 90 days after the fmal closing date for filing statements of opposition,
unless the water court grants additional time. For both cases, the date by which the Board would be
required to submit its findings of fact and recommendations would be May 28, 2002. However, the
Staff and each Applicant have filed a joint motion with the water court to extend the deadline under
which the Board must file its findings of fact and recommendations. In the Longmont case, the
motion seeks a delay until 90 days after the Golden Supreme Court decision is rendered. In the
Pueblo case, the motion seeks a sixty day delay, until July 28, 2002. The motions are unopposed,
but the water courts have not ruled on either motion.

Staff Recommendation
City of LonfJmont
The City of Longmont has requested that the Board hold a hearing, but also requested that the
hearing coordinator defer establishing deadlines and setting a hearing until after the Golden
Supreme Court decision is rendered. (See the attached letter and Request for Hearing). Thus, the
Staff requests that this Board appoint a hearing coordinator, instruct the hearing coordinator to
defer establishing deadlines until after the Golden Supreme Court decision is rendered (if the Water.
Court grants the pending motion), and instruct the Staffto continue to work with the Applicant and
the affected water users to develop proposed decrees that satisfy the requirements of Senate Bill
216 and the CWCB rules promulgated thereunder.

Flood Protection . Water Supply Planning and Finance. Stream and Lake Protection
Water Supply Protection. Conservation and Drought Planning