Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Colorado Water Conservation Board <br />Pagc 2 <br />January 23, 1998 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />(My proposed addilionallanguage italicized.) <br />10.40 If in the discretion of the Board a rcquest for modification of an existing ISF right is <br />consistent with the goals of the ISF Program. .., (deleted old language) ... THE GOARD SHALL <br />ISSUE A m:,\I.preliminary DETERMINATION REGARDING THE DECREASE THAT SHALL <br />STATE ITS centative EFFECTIVE DA IE which date shall provide allevaluatiol1 period of the <br />actual ~[fec/j' of the decreased ISF and be no more than three yearsfollowing the Board's <br />determination andBE MAILED PROMPTL Y TO THE PERSONS WHO APPEARED BY <br />WRITTEN OR ORAL COMMENT AT TilE BOARD'S PROCEEDING.ljthe 130arcifindr that <br />such lIIl evaluation of actual effects SlIpports a decrease of the existing ISF right, the Board shall <br />then isslle afinal determination regarding the decrease Ihat shall state its effeclive dale, be mailed <br />promptly to the persons who appeared by written or oral comment at the Board's proceedings. AND <br />BE FILED PROMPTLY WITH THE WATERCOURI. Thefinal decrease determined by the Board <br />on the basis of all evaluation of actual effects may he equal to or less than the amount of decrease ill <br />the oriF:inal request but may not exceed it. .__ (Additional deletcd old language.) <br /> <br />An empirical evaluation of effects of reduced stream flows on an environment would strcng\hen the <br />Board's position if a modification were subjected to judicial rcvicw. Certainly not every instance of <br />modification would necessarily lend itself to such an evaluation due to physical limitations, but <br />where possible thc Board would retain the option to do so. . <br /> <br />I suggest a possible three-year evaluation pcriod to allow inclusion of climatic variations, <br />operational factors for facilities on a stream or Other factors that may prevent an cvaluation in one <br />ycar but not be an impediment in another. It is important not to impose undue hardship on the <br />applicant for a modification but since. as a practical mattcr, modifications to ISF rights have proved <br />to take nearly this long anyway a delay of no ml)re than thrce years balanced with the added measure <br />of certainty that a dctermination by the Board is correctly made should not posc undue hardship. <br />Extremes ofwct and dry years rarely persist mOrc than a couple of years, so it is likely that the <br />. evaluation would be sufficiently rcprescntative of the stream 01' lake's hydrograph to enable accurate <br />projcctions of the effects ofa decrease when combined with historic data. A three-year period would <br />also cnable the Hoard to exclude from consideration improbable or uniquc catastrophic events such <br />as flash floods or hazardous contaminant spills or discharges to the waters. It is conceivable that only <br />one or two ycars of evaluation would be ncccSS:\ry, and the Iloard would continue to have the option <br />of reviewing thc rcsults and establishing a final effectivc datc for a decrease at its discrction. If <br />granted by thc Board, the one-year data collection period provided in new Section 10.53 should bc <br />concurrent with - not in addition to - this proposed ex.tended evaluation period. <br /> <br />Thank you in advance for your thoughtful and I hope favorable consideration ofthc alternative I <br />purpose here. I intend to make every effolt to make myself availablc to you at next week at your <br />meeting in Northglcnn, and am certainly available to you or staff to discuss this matter in the mean <br />time. <br /> <br />K'N CLARK III 444 HAARI~CN A"'IE. FT. LurrCN .CO 80621 <br />IRI303.857.9437 101303-441.4250 IFI303.530.1137 <br /> <br />. <br />