I think you may have misunderstood the bill. RICD's are by nature a nonconsumptive use. The Colorado Water Conservation Board's biggest fear is the "Fruita RICD." Water Colorado is entitled to through interstate compacts currently leaves the State. That's why the "Big Straw" was being considered. If Fruita were to apply for an RICD for current Colorado River peak flows, this could preclude new uses of Colorado River water upstream of Fruita, even though the State is entitled to this water through interstate compacts.It may do more than that, if you read the text of the legislation, it seems to direct the water court to find against any water use that is not "consumptive"
This issue is probably the primary force driving RICD legilsation. The 90% rule and kayker specific language in the bill is mostly the result of negotiations with legislators who don't want any RICD water rights allowed.IF A WATER COURT DETERMINES THAT A PROPOSED RECREATIONAL IN-CHANNEL DIVERSION WOULD MATERIALLY IMPAIR THE ABILITY OF COLORADO TO FULLY DEVELOP AND PLACE TO CONSUMPTIVE BENEFICIAL USE ITS COMPACT ENTITLEMENTS, THE COURT SHALL DENY THE APPLICATION.