My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2-28 House Committee amended to appropriations (2)
CWCB
>
IBCC Process Program Material
>
Backfile
>
2-28 House Committee amended to appropriations (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/15/2009 6:00:45 PM
Creation date
7/25/2007 1:16:51 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
IBCC Process Program Material
Title
2-28 House Committee Amended to Apropriations
IBCC - Doc Type
Legislation
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
19
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />2-28 House Committee amended to appropriations-1 <br /> <br />Page 2 of 19 <br /> <br />Madame Chair: <br /> <br />Rep. Hoppy: <br /> <br />Madame Chair: <br /> <br />Rep. McKillley: <br /> <br />We've got problems we have to solve and we should do it today, so <br />I would urge a No vote on this amendment. <br /> <br />Representative Hoppy <br /> <br />Thank you Madame Chair, and I would ask for a No vote on the <br />McKinley strike bill amendment also. I think it's important that we <br />move forward today and set up these basin roundtables, go with the <br />bill as the proposed amendments indicate. But with another <br />amendment change, I think, setting the date out a little farther, I <br />think as the Chair is proposing to do. <br /> <br />A portion of this or all of this can be discussed in the Water <br />Resource Review Committee, which is the interim committee. <br />There's nothing to prevent discussion from going on in that <br />Committee because the bill's passed, you know. So I think it's <br />appropriate that we move forward with this bill, and I'd ask for a <br />No vote on the McKinley strike bill amendment. <br /> <br />Representative McKinley, we need a little bit of clarification about <br />what you want the Water Resources Review Committee to <br />consider. Is it the bill itself, House Billll77? <br /> <br />Yes, I've kind of gotten confi.lsed here, what's amendment and <br />what's the House Bill. But we have a lot of contradictory terms in <br />there. We have voluntary and we have policy. And right here it <br />says it shall be - all areas of the state must cooperate. And it <br />wasn't my definition, highest and best usage, that'd come out of the <br />testimony earlier when we were done. That was where the money <br />was. <br /> <br />In here it talks about agriculture, recreation. We have some <br />recreation bills up we're gonna be looking at with regards to the <br />water. How that affects our streams. That's a bill we're looking at, <br />agriculture. All of those things. <br /> <br />And how much water do we actually use? How much do we need? <br />You know, that's the term that we hear is water usage and how <br />much water you use. Figure up yourself how much you use. I can <br />tell you that a man and his mule only need s about 14 gallons a day, <br />and most of us don't have a mule. But go through the - 500 <br />gallons a day is what the water people use over in Grand Junction <br />and they have really got conservative to use 500 gallons a day. <br />The industry standard is about a thousand. And figure that's 250 <br />gallons per person. Figure out how many times you want to use <br /> <br />www.escriptionist.com <br /> <br />Page 2 of 19 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.