Laserfiche WebLink
Mme. Chair: OK. I think I'll let Rob answer that question. <br /> Rob Kuharich: I think that we're looking at this water right in terms of — it's a bird <br /> of a different color here. We've got a water right that by virtue of <br /> just the water existing in the stream and rearranging the channel <br /> bottom comes into existence. The transfer of conditional water <br /> rights, and as I mentioned earlier, there are thousands of them still on <br /> the books — you just have to show diligence every five years to <br /> maintain these water rights. The transfer of conditional water rights <br /> for another purpose would allow this in- channel recreational <br /> diversion to all of sudden jump ahead of many existing water rights <br /> that occur up above. <br /> The example that I used was .1950 filings by major oil companies, all <br /> looking for tax deductions with their increased revenues that could <br /> be given to an entity that wishes to build a course or had a course. <br /> And all of a sudden this water right becoming absolute by virtue of <br /> the water in the stream jumps ahead of many other water rights on <br /> the stream such as the domestic uses or agricultural uses that <br /> occurred in•between the early water right date, the conditional `50s <br /> date, and present. <br /> Mme. Chair: • Representative Spradley? . <br /> Rep. Spradley: Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative Plant, I think I may be <br /> you know, when I said that, I may have, you know, overstated the <br /> case a little bit because I think we are trying to state the CWCB's <br /> role which is — my understanding it was not stated before. And the <br /> impact of conditional water rights. And so we're going a little <br /> further than that. We're recognizing what the courts have said and <br /> that is this is a legitimate water right. And then we're trying to put <br /> • [unintelligible]. <br /> Mme. Chair: Representative Plant? <br /> Rep. Plant: Thank you. I'm still — I understand your argument for why you feel . <br /> that there shouldn't be a decree in this way, but it seems to me that <br /> that's going directly counter to what the courts have said concerning, <br /> you know, "water matters" which are to be under the jurisdiction of <br /> the courts. And as a change in the conditional water rights, it <br /> specifically said that that constitutes a water matter that would be <br /> considered under the courts. <br /> Mme. Chair: Representative Spradley? <br /> May 7, 2001 <br /> Page 9 <br />