Laserfiche WebLink
<br />management plan. The CBRT fears that the NCNA could be used in a regulatory or <br />litigation context, thereby violating the HB 1177 mandate that the roundtable process should <br />not violate existing water rights - see the glossary for the specific statutory language at issue. <br /> <br />g. Front Range representatives requested that grant applicants must state the purposes for which <br />they will use the NCNA results, and this prompted the following discussion. <br /> <br />h. Tom Clark mentioned that "A study cannot diminish water rights; implementing the study <br />could diminish rights, and we need to distinguish between these." Ken Neubecker, Trout <br />Unlimited, remarked that "We have to understand what a river needs, or else we're being <br />dishonest. We have to know what it needs to make the system work." Carl Hanlon, Esq., <br />Leavenworth & Karp, P.c., reminded the group that HB 1177 prevents the roundtable <br />process from diminishing a water right. He, stated, "We cannot ask a municipality to limit <br />what they will use the results of a study for." <br /> <br />1. Ken Brown, Esq., remarked that "the last significant water legislation in Colorado was <br />passed in 1969. The studies leading up to the implementation of that water administration <br />legislation had no legal effect. Concerns up to the point of implementation aren't serious <br />concerns. It is when the legislature debates and passes new legislation that leads to the <br />implementation of the legislation that legal rights will be affected." <br /> <br />J. John Redifer, CBRT, commented that the CBRT supports doing the NCNAs. <br /> <br />k. Mark Fuller mentioned that every study has the potential to affect water rights. He <br />commented that nearly every key stakeholder in the Roaring Fork Watershed Study Group <br />own water rights, such as ranchers, municipalities, and water providers. <br /> <br />I. David Merritt remarked that "if the pending legislation (SB 122) calling for the CWCB to <br />study water availability in Colorado indicates that there is not as much water available as we <br />thought, a lot of water rights will be gored. For the last 75 years we have avoided the issue <br />of what to do in the event of a Compact call. Every person who has registered a conditional <br />water right has made an assumption about other water rights. The studies funded by the <br />$40m Water for the 21 st Century grants are intended to remove the development of water <br />rights from a pure market basis." <br /> <br />8. May CBRT meeting - upcoming Water for the 21st Century Grant requests. <br /> <br />a. Grant requests must be submitted to Dave Merritt before the May meeting to be eligible for <br />consideration at the meeting. <br /> <br />b. Carlyle Currier, CBRT representative to the IBCC, mentioned that the Bull Creek Irrigation <br />District will again request a grant to enlarge the Bull Creek Reservoir. <br /> <br />c. Rick Brown mentioned that if someone opposes a grant request and votes against it, they <br />must identify themselves and state why they oppose it. <br /> <br />9. Update on previous Water for the 21st Century Grant awards. <br /> <br />a. Grand County NCNA: Lane Wyatt reported that Grand County is debating whether to accept <br />the CBR T grant funds due to the strings attached that could limit what the study results <br />would be used for. <br /> <br />L\CWCB Imaging\Caleb\Minutes\Colorado\2007\Minutes Apr 2007 CBRTdoc <br /> <br />3 <br /> <br />7/I< <br />