Laserfiche WebLink
And what we're saying is the courts have an interpretive <br /> [unintelligible] and they have created a recreational [unintelligible]. <br /> Nobody is arguing with that. Now, what we're trying to do is give <br /> direction to the courts so that the courts will still make the decision <br /> on the interpretation. The water court is still a very important part of . <br /> this whole process. Nobody is trying to undermine that process. But <br /> what we're trying to do here is give direction to the courts through <br /> the separation of powers, and I think it's appropriate for us to do that <br /> or else I wouldn't be [unintelligible]. <br /> Mme. Chair: Mr. Cattany, did you have comments you wanted to add to this <br /> discussion? <br /> Ron Cattany: Not to this discussion, but I was just going to follow up to you and <br /> Representative Johnson's comment and I will take that back to the <br /> department and we'll get back with you on whether or not there are <br /> any other outstanding issues [inaudible]. <br /> Mme. Chair: Thank you. Representative Jamison? <br /> Rep. Jamison: Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Kuharich, you said that you were <br /> • <br /> afraid that we were taking these rights and we're changing them <br /> we're jumping ahead. We're turning, I guess, junior rights into <br /> senior rights or something. But if these are non- consumptive, how <br /> can that be taking place? The water is still there. Nobody <br /> [unintelligible]. <br /> Mme. Chair: Mr. Kuharich. • <br /> Rod Kuharich: Well, let's take — I hate_to come back to this oil shale example but <br /> it's one I'm very familiar with. The oil companies own thousands of <br /> [unintelligible] feet of conditional water rights on the Colorado River <br /> for oil shale purposes. These water rights have a priority date. <br /> They're conditional and they have a priority date [audio interference] <br /> early 1950s. I believe Vail was built in '64, '65, '62, something like <br /> that. Thank you, Representative. [crosstalk] And their water rights <br /> for domestic purposes are in the 1962 range. <br /> If a kayaking course were to have been given these conditional water <br /> rights in the 1950s and convert them immediately to absolute water <br /> rights, then the municipal water rights, having a priority date junior, <br /> could not divert until the in- channel flow was satisfied. That's <br /> where the problem comes in. We're attempting to circumvent <br /> mischief is really what we're trying to do at this point. I don't know <br /> how much more blunt I can be about it. Because there is an <br /> opportunity to do just that with transferring these conditional water <br /> May 7, 2001 <br /> Page 11 <br />