Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Update: I just received proposed amendments to 56 148 (see <br />attached). I don't know yet whether or not the bill passed with these <br />amendments, The amendments remOve the requirement that a mitigation <br />agreement be executed between the county and the party transferring the <br />water. It does require that the party transferring the water pay a "transition <br />mitigation payment" that would make up for the lost property tax value <br />resulting from the transfer, and pay a "bonded indebtedness payment," <br />which will be equal to the reduction in revenue that is attributable to the <br />removal of the water, The water court will be required to make sure these <br />payments have been made prior to granting a decree. The requirement for <br />these payments would not apply to water conservancy districts, <br />conservation districts, special districts, or municipalities within these <br />districts when the transferred water continues to be used with the <br />boundaries of the districts. This may be a reasonable step toward <br />addressing the impacts of Ag to M&I transfers. Update: SB 148 has now <br />received late bill status. That will give Senator Hillman more time to work <br />on amendments. Attached for your review is a proposed amendment that <br />was discussed by the Colorado . Water Congress on Monday. This <br />amendment is consistent with the proposed amendments that I provided <br />to you earlier. It would authorize the water court to require a transfer <br />payment (payment from buyer to county to make up for lost tax base) as a <br />part of issuing a transfer decree that would propose to move more than <br />1,000 acre-feet out of one county to another and change the use. <br /> <br />Update: It is my recommen,dation that the board of the District <br />support the concept of SB148, including the proposed amendment to SB <br />148. This would be consistent with ~he board's position last year when we <br />supported efforts to include water transfer mitigation language in the <br />growth legislation. This of course assumes 56 148 survives its first <br />committee vote. <br /> <br />8 <br />