Laserfiche WebLink
• <br /> • <br /> quasi governmental agencies and no private property owner, whether they have valid <br /> right or not is entitled to do so. And I just frankly think that's the wrong way to be <br /> • handling water rights in Colorado. <br /> Chairman: Representative Spradley <br /> Rep. Spradley: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, this is a amendment that was offered in the <br /> committee and failed in the committee. I think there were two YES votes for the <br /> amendment. This amendment allows conditional water rights to that right now have little <br /> or no hope of being developed. They are conditional, it allows those to be developed. It <br /> will throw the whole prior appropriation system into chaos. Because these water rights <br /> that have never called to be developed into calling rights for a very small cost of simply <br /> • • ' • .developing; putting some boulders the stream and developing a kayak run or a boat . . . . . <br /> chute. All of sudden you have something that is going to totally change the prior <br /> appropriation system. Current law doesn't even allow the CWCB to convert conditional <br /> water rights to instream flow rights because instream uses and in channel uses are <br /> different then diversionary consumptive water rights. Please vote NO on this. This is a <br /> very danger amendment. <br /> Chairman: Representative Jamison <br /> Rep. Jamison: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members we are not changing prior <br /> • appropriation. The case law specifically states that conditional water rights like I said <br /> cannot be destroyed or injured. Prior appropriation says if its your water rights, you can <br /> choose to do with it. We're changing what would be consumptive conditional water <br /> rights to non consumptive water rights, we're making a senior right to change the most <br /> junior right. If we were to pass this bill, were giving precedence, were giving seniority to <br /> water rights that are upstream and junior if we pass this bill. In other words were <br /> invalidating these conditional water rights that have been held valid by the courts and <br /> appropriated accordingly. <br /> Chauman:.Representative Young . .. . . <br /> Rep. Young: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, well there are restrictions on what you can do in <br /> terms of changing a water right, and other laws and this is really a bad amendment. If <br /> you strike these lines we're looking at the development of a new kind of concept here, <br /> when you start talking about filing for a recreational right. And if you read the language <br /> that's currently in the bill, no decree shall be entered adjudicating a change of conditional <br /> water rights to recreational in channel diversion. This just, this amendment doesn't <br /> make sense. This language just makes it very clear that if you have a conditional water <br /> right you can't change it into recreational. Think about what the long term impact is of <br /> the idea that you're going to able to take a conditional water right and there are a lot of <br /> conditional water rights where people are going out, their continuing their water rights by <br /> showing that at some time their going to plan, that they are planning for developing a <br /> • water right into a full water right. This conditional water right, right here if you were to <br /> say, we'll make it available we will buy it and some entity goes out says we will it buy <br /> 4 <br />