2-28 House Committee amended to appropriations

Home Browse Search

2-28 House Committee amended to appropriations Page 12 of 22 Rep. PelllY You could actually add it in 5, Subparagraph B, where we sort of have a menu of other things, members shall serve for a term of five years, vacancy shall be filled pursuant to the same criteria as the original appointments, and then you could include that proviso about not letting one party dominate it. Madame Chair: Okay, we'll keep working on that. We'll come back to that. How about LO 12 on Page 9, I think that's where we left off. Rep. PelllY Okay. Thank you Madame Chair. This amendment, there's several things at work here. I'll deal with the membership of the Interbasin Compact Committee first. Again, in response to some people who wanted greater specificity as to who was gonna be on the Interbasin Compact Committee, we made clear that two representatives will be from each roundtables. So there's nine roundtables. Each of those will be able to appoint two people. But the one caveat is that one of those people they appoint has to own water or own shares in a ditch or reservoir company. And then we added, actually I don't know why that's underlined. I don't know that we added - that that's different from the original bill, but again the chairs from both the House and Senate Ag Committees will have an appointment. And part of the reason that was added was to ensure some degree of bipartisan suppOli or participation. But I'm happy to work with Representative McFadyen. So that's the membership piece. Madame Chair: Representative Penry, just - I remember the input that you got and we all got on making sure that the folks in the State of Colorado that own the water rights have a really strong voice in this process, and I think that's what you're trying to be responsive to here with LO 12. Is it your thought that if the basin roundtable is appointing their individuals, could one of those be working for a municipal government that owns water rights? Was that your thought there or they'd have personal ownership? Rep. PelllY Yeah, thank you Madame Chair. The way the language is stmctured right now, they would have to either own water rights or own a share in an irrigation or ditch company. And so, that language as it stands now, is not broad enough to incorporate somebody who works for a conservancy or conservation district, for example. But that's only one appointment. Their other appointment could be a person who worked for a conservancy district or - there's no limitation on the other person in terms of what their background is or is not. www.escriptionist.com Page 12 of 22