Laserfiche WebLink
Intr.rim tii.uus Repon <br />1'tihruurv.2h. 2(NM) <br />i'ait ? ? -- <br />.m?. <br />Sr.nator Dennis). The CWC:N strongly suppurts the water hank hilland suppoiys(huI <br />ncit with much enlhusiasni) the study hill. Comr.e.rning the rcrreational in-ncamn4l <br />c1ivcrsions or a.k..i. "boat chu1e" righls, 1his was t)lc 1'irst tinir. Ih4 C:WCD Jiscusscd <br />.un artual hill a, oppo.ed ici a concept. 1 havc anachr.d a e:opy ol' tlic pruposrci hili <br />that the CWCB disrulsed: The proposcd biJl (whirh m:iy lic lormal)y inir(Ouccd by <br />the time: this inemo'is received) Allows tor continued "hostt i:hutc" cleerrr.s-, hut puts <br />limitatiims on these appropriatioiu and pJaces the CWCB in apcitiilicm ot'entbrrinp <br />thex: lirnitatitms. <br />Thc ('WCB cnded up supporting this bill. !ab,tainecl. 1 (old lhc C"W(.'H Ih,it I,uppo»1 <br />the cuncept of puuing limitations on boat rhute appropriauions, hut theiv. aur soinc <br />prnvisions in the proposed bill that 1.?m concerned about: <br />The hil! restrict.s hoat chutc rights tt) puhlic cntitic.,; :,nd Puts a I.irgc burclcn <br />on the CWCB to rcview and evaluiitc thcse. aPPlic:ationx and rec«mrnettd . <br />arpmval or denial. Pre!Fumably the W,iter CourI wnulil give git.at dcli:rr.ncc <br />to the CWCB. '1'his is one more step in making thc C:W(:H a qu:isi•jucliciul <br />hody (e.g. ihe Water Quality Conttol Commixsicau). Diiring IheS[I•b4 debwe <br />and recently in the CWCR hearings to aelopt iis insu•tuui Ilow regulatiopti, Itu <br />River District Buard expressed reservations ccnecrning the me»mc.ntutIt lo <br />movc deeisions troditionally made hy the Watcr COLirI 10 tlte C:WCE3. <br />ii. Under the bi1J, tiie CWCB will recommend sPpruvu( ur Jenial of ho,it chtur. <br />Nvalei' rights utiinK a numher of criteria. The rrite;?•ia are litilr.d on pages 3 unJ <br />4(1) through (VIT). Isupponed critcria (I), (ll) und (IV) dealing witll c°c,mpar1 <br />i«ues, the apprupriate reach of strcam for the appruprialion and thc iitip:iel <br />un insiream resources. Howevzr. I oppuxed critcria (Ill) und (VI), 0•hcrin <br />(111) rcquires the C'WCB to address the owncrship u1' I;mds ahuttinE the teutlt <br />for whirh the watcr right is sought. This provi.gion inight he lirop4r il' Ihe <br />legislation allowed forprivate entities tu hoW these rights. 14ut t he icgisl,?tiun <br />restricts these rights to pubiic entitieti, municip.tlilieti, r.riuntics, tipeciul <br />dixtricts, ete., iac'h of which has an elected or appqinteJ guve:cuing hctdy. Ili <br />my view, the local governing body shuuld acjdit;ss the Iociil l:ind issues, not <br />a stnte agenc:y in Denver. <br />Criieria (Vl) would have required the CWCB tc, addri:ss injury it) othe;r waier <br />rights, ?his is :m issue for the Water Cotiri, not the (`.WCA. The. CWC:Ij <br />agreed and will suggest that the hill tipcmsor dclcle lhis prt,visicm. <br />1 a1so have concerns about c.riteria (V) whieh rnentions the "doetrine ()l' <br />maximum utili2aticm" und (VII) Which identif7e% "such nchcr fartors as mcry <br />he deiermined appropriate." My cemcern is that thesc criteria :t?ti• tiw