Laserfiche WebLink
<br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />17. Some participants asserted that the thought pieee was biased in that it assumes that oul-of-stream uses <br />are more valuable than instream uses. <br />18. Some participants stated that considering the effects ofURISFs and ICDs on the state's ability to <br />provide water for future benefieial uses such as munieipal, irrigation, industrial, and domestie uses <br />would involve the applieation of the publie trust doetrine--in reverse. Sueh applieation of the public <br />trust doetrine has not historieally oceurred, and sueh applieation of the public trust doetrine is <br />unauthorized in Colorado water law as it currently exists. <br />19. Others stated that there should be a public trust doetrine in Colorado. <br />20. Any limitation on the right to appropriate RISFs must eomply with the eonstitutional right to divert. <br />21. Some partieipants suggested that these types of workshops should be held outside of Denver and at <br />times other than during the traditional 9-5, Monday-Friday work day. <br />22. URISFs may be a huge "can of worms" that wiIl neeessarily involve legislation. Current law, as it <br />relates to ICDs, is generally satisfaetory but the law eould be "tuned up." <br />23. Partieipants stated that the CWCB should be aware of potential eonfliets between CWCB instream flow <br />water rights and RISFs. In other words, the needs of the environment may not be compatible with <br />RISFs. <br />24. There have to be reasonable limits plaeed on the amount of the URlSF or ICD. These rights should not <br />be allowed to eonsume the entire stream or preclude other opportunities on thc strcam. The adjudieatory <br />proeess should be used to answer these questions, as it would be used in any othcr Watcr right <br />applieation. <br /> <br />Cateeorlzation of the Issues Raised at the Workshop <br /> <br />Board member Erie Kuhn summarized the workshop discussions by stating that thcrc arc three basie poliey <br />questions that the CWCB must eonsider in any future discussions about RISFs. Those qucstions are: I) <br />how should the CWCB address new large appropriations that may be used to prcvcnt. or scvcrely limit, <br />upstream water development? (this issue exists with other types of rights, but it is aggravated by the reeent <br />appropriation ofRISFs); 2) should the CWCB suggest the General Assembly 10 linc-tunc thc statute as it <br />relates to ICDs or work within the existing statutory framework to assure that lCD, ha\c rcasonable limits <br />and amounts? and, 3) should the CWCB eneourage the General Assembly to adopl ncw legislation and give <br />it or another state ageney authority to proteet URISfs? Based on these eategorics. many diffcrent <br />alternatives are listed. Under each alternative is a list of pereeived issues, problcms. advantagcs. and <br />questions related to eaeh option. <br />+ means a pereeived advantage <br />means a perceived disadvantage <br />+/- means both a perceived advantage and a perceived disadvantage <br /> <br />New laree appropriations <br />1. The Board could file statements of opposition and participate in the adjudicatory process for all <br />new large appropriations in order to assure that such appropriations are the "greatest utilization" <br />of the waters. <br />Staffing eoneerns. Where would the resourees come from? <br />What would be eonsidered a large appropriation? Does the CWCB need to adopt rules? <br />This would be viewed by some as a violation of the eonstitutional provision guaranleeing persons the <br />right to divert the waters of the state. <br />+ No legislative ehange would be required. <br /> <br />Flood Protection. Water Project Planning and Financing. Stream and Lake Protection <br />Water Supply Protectioo. . Conservation Planning <br />