My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2-07 House Committee Lay Over Unamended
CWCB
>
IBCC Process Program Material
>
Backfile
>
2-07 House Committee Lay Over Unamended
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/15/2009 6:00:42 PM
Creation date
7/25/2007 1:21:29 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
IBCC Process Program Material
Title
2-07 House Committee Lay Over Unamended
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.
/
49
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 />2-07 House Committee Lay Over Unamended <br /> <br />Page 21 of 49 <br /> <br />I'm pleased to be here today to testify on this bill because this is <br />the first new idea in legislative form addressing an old, old issue <br />that has vexed this state for many years. The issue is, in one form <br />or another, known as basin boards and protection, equitable <br />allocation. All those words tend to mean the same thing. They all <br />deal with the movement of water from one place to another. <br /> <br />It's very clear to me and has been for a long time that if Colorado <br />is going to prosper, we have to be able to move water from one <br />place to another where it's most needed. <br /> <br />Some of the past basin origin bills that have failed have tried to <br />prohibit the movement of water and when they prohibit it or <br />condition it to make it impossible, you can see the vitality of the <br />state being hurt by that. That's probably the reason many of those <br />bills have failed. <br /> <br />On the other hand, moderate bills that impose some conditions <br />have tended to work and prosper and this bill may be seen as a <br />little bit in that nature. But I want to talk to this new concept, <br />which is negotiated arrangements. I think this is an excellent idea. <br /> <br />I do want to point out to my friend, Russ George and others, that <br />there's a significant and fundamental difference between what you <br />can do inside the state and what was done with the Colorado River. <br /> <br />The problem and the difference is that Colorado is a sovereign <br />state and the governor of Colorado in 1922 could appoint <br />somebody to represent all of the state. The state is sovereign and <br />that could be done. Delph Carpenter could effectively bind the <br />whole state. <br /> <br />The problem with this bill, one of the problems with the bill as it <br />now stands is there really isn't anybody who can represent all of <br />the South Platt River Basin or all of the Gunnison River Basin. <br />The Gunnison River Basin is not a sovereign state and neither is <br />the South Platt River. Despite Representative's Curry - perhaps <br />say you'd like to make it that way, but we're stuck with a <br />governmental arrangement that doesn't feed into an interstate <br />negotiation the same way intrastate works. <br /> <br />So one of the issues in this bill is who represents whom? How can <br />it be made binding on everybody forever? <br /> <br />www.escriptionist.com <br /> <br />Page 21 of 49 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.