House Committee on Agriculture, Livestock, & Natural Resources

Home Browse Search

Mme. Chair: No. [unintelligible] fails by a nine to two vote. Rep. Jameson: I move zero two four. Mme. Chair: Representative Jameson moves zero two four. Seconded by whom? Representative Plant? Rep. Plant: Yes. [crosstalk] Mme. Chair: Representative Jamison? Rep. Jamison: Thank you, Madam Chair. This is basically to say that we're talking about recreational water rights, and we can't extend this to cover any in- stream diversions to protect the national environment. In other words, you know, we have ditches that are straight as a line, you know. If the property right owner chooses to let those go awry a little bit, to restore the natural flow, and I think back to the presentation of what we had in Representative Alexander's district with the [unintelligible] fork of the Gunnison, his restoration project going on there, and we're talking about not removing any water, but letting the river reclaim its natural path, and under this type of thing I don't want this type of water right to interfere with anything like that happening. And I think the only way to do that is to actually spell . that out, and that's what zero two four does. Mine. Chair: Representative Spradley? Rep. Spradley: Thank you Madam Chairman, I ask for a no vote on this. I think that what this is doing is currently under the current laws, without the amendment, [audio interference] environmentalists can obtain these water rights through their local governments or country governments, and if you open this amendment up, and you accept this amendment, you open the floodgates to additional uses and without providing any benefits. The second thing is, and I think this is really important, if you do this you have opened this up to the federal government and state government of acquiring these kinds of water rights. I don't think you want to go there. Mme. Chair: Representative Rippy? May 7, 2001 Page 20