Laserfiche WebLink
Chairman: All opposed say No. <br />Vote: No <br />Chairman: The No's have it, the report lost. <br />Ghairman: To the bill Representative Spradley <br />Rep. Spraclley: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, the bill is concerning the establishment of a <br />procedure for the adjudication of a recreational in channel diversion by a local government. This bill had a some whax long life in the senate liecause it took awhile to ' <br />work it out and bring everybody to the table and right now we have most parties agreein.g <br />to what the wealth of the water community is all agieed to what's happening in the bill. <br />Tliis bill would help water courts. if there were guidelines to follow when recreational <br />water claims are filed. Cuuently there aze no standazds and procedures. Senate bill 216 <br />. requires local entities such as cities, counties, sanita.tion districts, and water clistricts to <br />first file a copy of their application for a water claim with the Colorado Water Conservation Board. The Boazd will then conduct a review of the water claim that includes opportunities for public comments and analyze the effects the water claim would <br />have on future water development. Those findings are then submitted to the water court: It does not repla.ce the water court it, it sends those findings to the water courts. A need . <br />'for this-Tegislation_has come a result d certain local districts filing vary large water claims for in channels water diversion for reereational purposes. These are for boat <br />chutes and kayak runs, primarily. It makes sense that attention be given to the impact of <br />these recreational uses have on our states futiues'abilities to development and use water <br />resources. There's going to be a question or just to put the record straight, this does <br />nothing retroactive, does not effect any of those water rights that have already been <br />granted, does nothing to those that have an application in-process. This is simply future <br />legislation, future process for how these particulaz reereational water rights will be <br />treated in the future. Ask for a I vote. Chairman: Representative Jaznison <br /> <br />Rep. Jamison: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I move 026 to be flashed on the screen. <br />Chairman: Properly before us, to the amendment. ' <br />Rep. Jamison: Thank you, Mr. Chaarman. Members there is some language in this bill <br />that says "no deeree shall be entered into adjudicating a change of conditional water <br />. rights to a recreational in channel d.iversion." What that says is that if you have a water <br />right you can't do with it what you choose. Case law on this stipulates that "one who is <br />.... .. . :.entitled to a conditional deeree defining his rights to water for ftture applicatian to -use <br />has a vested right which he may protect in case of any action by others to destroy or <br />injure that right." QJhat the courts have said is that you can make a stipulation like this in <br />law. There is no way that you can say if you have a right that we can supercede that <br />right. And take it away from you. And that's what there trying to do with this. What <br />' we're saying is the only eritities that can have in channel diversions are government,