4-14 Senate Committee

• Title: 4-14 Senate Committee
• IBCC - Doc Type: Legislation

4-14 Senate Committee
Interviewer, Interviewee

Page 19 of 37

not only the concept of prior appropriation but also the individual
water rights and water rights holders so that nothing in here would
really enable a round table to make commitment on behalf of a
water rights holder who did not agree with them, and I think that's
a very important distinction, and really quite valuable.

The other thing that I think is particularly important is that this is
not a mandate, that there is no enforceable mitigation agreement
that the court has to impose on people, that in fact it's really,
hopefi.Jlly, in the spirit ofIsaiah, come let us reason together that
the people will reason together, that they will come to some
obvious conclusion, and that is, we have met the enemy and they
are us. We are so intertwined in water that you really cannot say
that one basin can do something really without the knowledge and
the help of another basin. Now we should all be working together
on this.

We also are very fond of the Opt-out provision; in fact I think there
would have been a lot of opposition to this still unless there was an
opt-out provision. Not everyone is totally enumerative, but as it's
written, but I think as people began to look at it, they will see that
if they are not a round table, or don't create a round table, that they
may be unable to do some things that other basins are doing. And
so hopefi.Jlly, by its own weight, that it will impel participation.

In regard to how it might work for us, our greatest interest is really
page 11 and page 12, where it talks about the ability for the round
table to form a fomm as it were when you go through planning and
permitting processing, not that anything here in will supersede the
authority of the permitting authority, but you may not have to
replicate so many hearings, and it may be a basin wide kind of
hearing where people will really attend, and I think that is very
impOliant. Hopefi.Jlly we can come to a common set of facts of
which permits are granted and litigation is discussed. I think it's a
very good idea.

On the environmental amendment 26, we haven't seen it, but I am
assuming that the environmental appointee, just as all other
appointees, except for the ones specifically outside the basin, must
be a resident within the basin, and if that was tme then we would
have no problems with that amendment.

www.escriptionist.com

Page 19 of 37