Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Representative Penry, would you like to comment first? Go <br /> <br />ahead. <br /> <br />Representative Penry: <br /> <br />Thank you, Madame Chair. <br /> <br />And I know you offered the amendment with good intentions, <br /> <br />but we're--I don't support it and here's why. <br /> <br />The hallmark of <br /> <br />the Interbasin Compact Process was, is and always should be <br /> <br />empowering these local roundtables to make needs about their <br /> <br />water future. <br /> <br />And my fear with this is that, if you create an out and a <br /> <br />mechanism for people just to say, "You know what? We don't like <br /> <br />your process." And if you want to move water from one basin to <br /> <br />another, then frankly that would be my concern, where you could <br /> <br />go to the statewide process and bypass it altogether. <br /> <br />I think that by putting the money and investing it In the <br /> <br />roundtables, you create an incentive for water providers to get <br /> <br />engaged with the locals early, and this would--amendment would <br /> <br />undermine that reality. <br /> <br />Chairperson Curry: And the interesting thing, Committee, <br /> <br />lS we had a--ln a previous life when I managed the Conservancy <br /> <br />District, there was a project that would have involved lining a <br /> <br />canal--a big canal, but there were only about eight families. <br /> <br />It was a private irrigation association. <br /> <br />And when we went to the Conservancy District to try to get <br /> <br />support for funding that, the answer we got was, "Yeah, that <br /> <br />- 15 - <br />