Laserfiche WebLink
rights. And the legislature recognized that there was mischief when <br /> it gave the Water Conservation Board the authority to appropriate in- <br /> , <br /> stream flow rights, and we were prohibited from doing the very <br /> "things we're asking that these other in- channel rights be prohibited <br /> from. They're non - consumptive. They are different than water <br /> rights that are physically diverted from the channel and put to other <br /> uses. <br /> Mme. Chair: Representative Jamison? <br /> Rep. Jamison: Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, maybe I'm just confused, but <br /> you're talking about consumptive uses mixed in with non - <br /> consumptive uses and I don't see that that's what's happening here. <br /> One more question is based on that same line of questioning on <br /> consumptive. If we're not taking any water from the course, why are <br /> we limiting these types of water rights to governmental and quasi- - <br /> governmental entities? <br /> Steve Simms: Although there are statutes in place now to prevent the export of <br /> water, we were worried that they may not be strong enough to get <br /> the job done should some outside entity come in to make mischief <br /> and create one of these riots right on the State Board that would pull <br /> . the water through all the upstream uses and not allow them to do <br /> that, and then we would give up our rights' for the future. The <br /> Constitution was cited to you by Jo Evans, and I think she forgot one <br /> particular provision, which is although the right to appropriate water <br /> cannot be denied, that's clear in the Constitution, the Case Law is <br /> replete with suggestions that the General Assembly has the power to <br /> reasonably regulate that use of water, the appropriation of water, <br /> That is what the General Assembly did in 1969 to essentially create <br /> the loophole that created the whole recreational in- stream focus. <br /> Now this loophole wasn't discovered until 1992, but it was the <br /> General Assembly that created this loophole to begin with, and it is <br /> the General Assembly that can put reasonable regulations on use of <br /> this in the future, so that is not inappropriate. <br /> Lastly, the retrospective issue, I think that that has been covered by <br /> the grandfathering, and I think everyone basically that could <br /> potentially be covered by this is. And just one final comment on the <br /> [unintelligible] Christianson (sp) and the Victory case. That's <br /> confusing, because those cases talked about what is a water matter. <br /> That's all it talked about is the jurisdiction of the Water Court. One <br /> of the things is to deal with changes in water rights, but it is the <br /> General Assembly that defines what a change in water right is. They <br /> said you can change a conditional water right, and if they say you <br /> May 7, 2001 <br /> Page 12 <br />