Laserfiche WebLink
<br />2-07 House Committee Lay Over Unamended <br /> <br />Page 24 of 49 <br /> <br />you can't take more than 100,000 acre feet of water from this basin <br />to that one, but I'm not sure that passes the Constitutional test. <br /> <br />I mean that's my undigested answer at the moment. <br /> <br />Madam Chair: <br /> <br />Representative Penry. <br /> <br />Rep. Pemy <br /> <br />Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you Representative Brophy. A <br />couple of observations first on this issue of the contract and the <br />potential for the legislature to come back and medal with it. <br /> <br />The way it's stmctured now is because this is a contract, not only <br />would the legislature have to come back and medal, but you'd also <br />have to have the affirmative consent of the parties to the contract. <br />That's what gives the durability, the certainty, as speaker George <br />described it. <br /> <br />I think the issue that Chip's rightly hits at and Representative <br />Brophy hits at is something that's imputed, inferred from the term <br />compact and this is an issue that speaker George and I have talked <br />about a lot and one we may need to refine going forward because <br />we are committed to sort of affirming the preeminence of prior <br />appropriations. Nobody is coming forward and proposing any <br />substantial overhaul or any overhaul of that. <br /> <br />Really what we're after is agreements, arrangements, sort of the <br />win-win propositions as they've always occurred under our laws <br />and probably a lot of the major diversions that now supplies their <br />water fit into that category. <br /> <br />So, I don't think we are contemplating, sort of setting aside <br />unappropriated waters for one purpose and another in a way that <br />might be contrary to prior appropriations. <br /> <br />What we are doing is trying to create a scenario where negotiators <br />can negotiate win-win arrangements, but under the umbrella of <br />private property rights. So, it's going to be - short of changing the <br />Constitution, you couldn't ever say that a certain amount of water <br />couldn't leave one basin or another. I don't think that's what <br />we're after in this instance. We're trying to foster negotiations, <br />like you'd talked about Denver Water's currently involved in some <br />instances in the river districts involved in, but on a larger plane. <br /> <br />Madam Chair: Any other thoughts or questions for Mr. Barry. Thank you very <br />much for those remarks. Appreciate it. <br /> <br />www.escriptionist.com Page 24 of 49 <br />