Having done a ton of research on the whole RICD debate and Colorado Water Law, I felt that I understood almost everything in the proposal. This one doesn't seem nearly as bad as a lot of Isgar's previous stuff.
Basically it says that the CWCB will evaluate the benefits before granting water rights for RICD use. They already do this anyway, so it's really not that big of a change. I feel that the legislation is unnecessary for exactly this reason. Colorado water laws already protect people's minimum need for water through the law regarding domestic priority. In addition, all the jabber in the bill about potential RICD water rights not detracting from previous claims is superfluous. This is already in the Colorado Constitution in the "First in Time, First in Right" clause.
There were only a few new things that I noticed in the bill. First, they define a "diversion" as having to be professionally engineered. Though I don't know of any, this would affect the rights for any spots created by makeshift or impromptu construction. Also, they define recreational use as only being kayaking. Now don't get me wrong, I do realize that kayakers are better than everyone else; but discounting the forms of recreation like flyfishing, rafting, swimming, tubing...coughcough...etc. could make it more difficult for our local playspots to obtain water rights.
I didn't quite understand the whole part about one half of one percent of the water (pg.5 ll.6-9)---so if anyone can explain this, it would be greatly appreciated.
"The world would be a better place if everyone kayaked."-Brad Ludden (Valhalla)
"You only get one chance to run a drop blind."-DD