My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD01311
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
1001-2000
>
BOARD01311
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 3:00:09 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 6:53:10 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
7/24/2000
Description
ISF Section - Approval of Fourmile and Oil Creek Hearing Orders
Board Meetings - Doc Type
Memo
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />VII. Factual Issues: <br />I) The amount of water needed to preserve the environment to a reasonable degree, <br />a. Application ofR-2 Cross method, <br />b, Insufficient data. <br />c, Recommended amount exceeds minimum needed, <br />d. Errors in calculation, <br />2) Whether water is available to preserve the environment to a reasonable degree, <br />a, Flawed hydrologic analysis. <br />b. Insufficient data. <br />c, Existing water rights and competing conditional water rights applications, <br />3) Whether there is material injury to water rights, <br />a. Undecreed existing exchanges, <br />b, This issue overlaps with factual issue 2) above. <br /> <br />VIII. Legal and Policy Issues: <br />I) What appropriation date may the Board claim? <br />2) Whether an instream flow appropriation can be based on water that is already <br />appropriated? <br />3) What is the meaning of "minimum" and "reasonable degree?" <br />4) To what extent must the Board correlate the activities of mankind with some <br />reasonable preservation of the natural environment in appropriating instream flows <br />and what should the Board consider in such correlation? <br />5) Is the Board required to allow cross-examination of parties' witnesses? <br /> <br />IX <br /> <br />Hearing Schedule: <br />I) Introductions and preliminary remarks of Parties (5 minutes per party) <br />2) Party presentations and time allotments (not including questioning by Board or <br />Parties) <br />a, CWCB Staff and DOW presentation 2,5 hours, <br />b, BLM 0.75 hours, <br />c, Cripple Creek & Victor Gold Mining Co, I hour <br />d. City of Cripple Creek 1.75 hours <br />e, Pisgah Res, & Ditch Co and Catlin Canal Co, 0,25 hours <br />f, Trout Unlimited 0,75 hours <br />3) Contested Case Participants presentations (5 minutes each) <br />4) Public Comment <br />5) Rebuttal by CWCB Staff <br />6) Arguments on facts, policy, and law (15 minutes per party) <br />7) Deliberations <br /> <br />x. <br /> <br />Hearing Procedures: The hearing will be governed by the Rules Concerning the <br />Colorado Instream Flow and Natural lake Level Program, 2 CCR 408-2 ("I SF Rules"), <br />The Board will not apply the rules of evidence or civil procedure. <br /> <br />Board members may ask questions of any person speaking at the hearing, Pursuant to <br />ISF Rule 5.55(C), only the Board may question witnesses except where the Board <br /> <br />2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.