2-28 House Committee amended to appropriations

Home Browse Search

2-28 House Committee amended to appropriations Page 18 of 22 Madame Chair: Rep. Hoppy: prescriptive in this bill we're gonna let the water professionals make that judgment for themselves. You know, Representative Penry, having a Committee like this in existence, it makes plenty of people nervous. So what we had talked about originally was how I feel personally that this bill should be going to the Water Resources Review Committee this summer for detailed discussion. Representative Penry wanted to get the ball rolling on this, so I am willing to support this version, the 2/28 version that we have with some amendments, it looks like, that are coming forward, that we're gonna talk about. But I'd like to know where the Committee stands 'cause we're really, we're taking a big step in the whole arena of water policy in the State of Colorado. Is this where you're comfortable headed? I mean is this going to help us solve some of our problems? That's what this is all about. Can anyone give me any feedback on this kind of an approach? This is a 27-member committee that's pretty diverse. Representative Hoppy. Thank you Madame Chair. You know, I think this bill, if we do approve these amendments that we've heard today, has come a long way and has addressed a lot of problems. And I think you're right dividing it into two divisions, basin roundtables I think would be very helpful in every basin of the state because frankly a lot of the citizens in the basins don't understand what all the problems are within their basin, and I think they've got to understand those first before they can proceed. I like the idea, at this time, of separating out the Interbasin Compact Committee and how that's going to proceed. I guess that gives us a little more time to more clearly define what the role of that committee would be according to the amendments would be not later than January 31, 2006 to establish mles. So that gives me a little comfort that we can get the roundtables set up and we can proceed if - is it necessary to go in this direction or whether or not we just stop. Madame Chair: I think Representative Penry, you mentioned that you know, we could maybe go to a March or - what does the amendment say that I have, March deadline instead of - I was worried that it was a pretty short timeframe for this crew to get together. But originally, you know, what would make sense is to have this piggyback on Phase II of SWSI, but the statewide water supply investigation timeframe is, I think, in about a two-year - that's what people have told me, is that they were looking for about two years to work on www.escriptionist.com Page 18 of 22