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 33 of 49 <br /> <br />data can be more valuable and provide even a better foundation for <br />going forward with this type of legislation. <br /> <br />In conclusion I would say this legislation, as I say, is a very <br />laudable concept and needs to be pursued, but I do feel, and the <br />district and sub-district feels that there needs to be a little bit <br />further definition put on the bill. There needs to be a little more <br />definition as to process and responsibilities, memberships on the <br />roundtables, the role of CWCB and the role of SWSI if that could <br />be done. <br /> <br />I do want to assure the bill's sponsor and the committee however <br />that the organizations that I represent are more than willing to sit <br />down and participate in a process that we feel could be very <br />fmitful to the future of the state of Colorado. <br /> <br />Madam Chair: <br /> <br />Mr. Wilkinson, maybe it's because we've heard a lot of <br />testimonies today, but your concern about the relative priority of <br />the compacts, can you take it out of the theoretical and give me an <br />example of what you're concerned about there 'cause I didn't quite <br />understand that? <br /> <br />Mr. Wilkinson: <br /> <br />Madam Chair, and I'll do it in the esoteric here. If basin A and <br />basin B have a compact and they work out a compact that is good <br />amongst themselves and basic C wants to come along and make a <br />compact with either basin A or basin B, it shouldn't be that basin C <br />is in a subordinate role in its dealing with basin A or basin B <br />because of its later in time appropriation of water or need to work <br />out a compact with either basin A or basin B. <br /> <br />I don't think it would be advisable to have the first two basins that <br />are able to work out a compact have basically the grand fathering of <br />everything that they want within their compacts, like you're almost <br />I know talking about maybe a super compact amongst all the <br />states, but to craft something is going to be difficult, but I think <br />that's an important concept to keep in mind. <br /> <br />Madam Chair: Okay. Then just to follow-up, the bill on its face or as written <br />doesn't expressly address that, is that what you said? <br /> <br />Mr. Wilkinson: Madam Chair, in my opinion, no, but I can't address the bill- <br /> <br />Madam Chair: Representative Penry, did you want to comment? <br /> <br />Rep. Pemy Thank you, Madam Chairman. That's one of the fundamental <br />roles of the inter-basin compact committee, as we've constituted, <br /> <br />www.escriptionist.com Page 33 of 49 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.