Laserfiche WebLink
<br />SB 122: Projects Bill: Section 17 of the bill dealing with recreational and <br />channel diversions; these are not out of legislative arena; rec interests do <br />not want study. <br />HB 1 0 12: in stream flow loan statute: followed on for instream flow <br />program; if you loan your water right for in stream flow you are not <br />abandoning your water right; bill not facing opposition <br />1036: preventing any govt entity from condemning a water right: faces <br />some stiff opposition from some municipalities; question of why bill is <br />here, but seems popular to limit govt's right to condemn <br />1038: provides state match for bills to eliminate Tamarisks; fairly <br />noncontroversial; <br />Bill to study 1109 water in aquifers, killed in committee: comment was no <br />need for another study because of study of storage on alluvial aquifers <br />1124: controversial bill dealing with reservoir operating mles: assigned <br />house ag: has not had hearing yet; water congress rejected it; and will <br />oppose it.. .Rep Hodge will table it and bring back to interim committee <br />this summer <br />(Water congress: reviews bills and makes recommendations to oppose or <br />support; provides direction on policy) <br />1132 : provides water court judge authority to oppose conditions on <br />change of use of water use to impose terms and conditions on water <br />quality; ct could put terms and conditions to mitigate impact; controversial <br />but could pass <br />1156: bill requires disclosure source of residential use: put in real estate <br />contract: large letters: part of your water supply could come from limited <br />supply; contact your water supplier; this could be controversial and <br />opposition. <br />Diane Hoppe: Comment on IBCC meeting: SB 122: constmction bill: <br />amazed at controversy; Conservation Board goes through in-depth process <br />before bills come to legislation; surprise at opposition. <br /> <br />4. CWCB Report: Eric Wilkinson: <br />Jan meeting: new in-stream flows; none in South Platte Basin; Division 4 <br />and Division 6. Discussion on SWSI and how SWSI moving forward; <br />SWSI II was looking at 4 different areas: Ag transfers, rec needs, gap <br />analysis: Section 15 amended as part of original-- meant to look at <br />transbasin diversions including: South Platte pump back, down near <br />Sterling; AK pump back: la Junta; Blue Mesa pump back, Big Straw pump <br />back; Flaming Gorge: 1/5 million to statt study. Gap committee told <br />CBM to take those to common denominator, then for purpose of common <br />comparison... in order to understand cost per ac ft for each transbasin <br />projects. CWCB: one of sponsors was reluctant to sponsor iflanguage <br />stayed same: position: no transbasins projects could be studied unless <br />roundtable invited them to study. Ended up with amendment to Section <br />15: Water Availability Study; <br /> <br />4 <br />