SB01-216 Senate Committee on Public Policy and Planning

Home Browse Search

SB01 -216 SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC POLICY AND PLANNING April 12, 2001 Sen. Entz: The Colorado Water Conservation Board and also the Colorado Water Congress and many different entities are concerned with what's happening with the recreational in- channel diversion. And the courts have issued two recreational in- channel diversions, 30 second feet for Ft. Collins and 100 second feet for Littleton. One appropriation currently before the Water Court for a maximum of 1000 cfs, which represents the entire stream of Clear Creek. Entities could use the current law to claim very high flows at the State borders to essentially export water to California, Kansas and other states for use outside the State of Colorado. And if Senate Bill 216 does not pass this year, the flood gates could be opened and we'd have a run on the courthouse. Legislation [unintelligible] creates an in- channel recreational water right that can be appropriate by local government entities, requires a CWCB to make finding regarding the protection of Colorado's interstate compact entitlements and [unintelligible] of the stream reach for the intended use and reasonable and appropriate water use. And it also grandfathers in all the applications filed before December 1, 2000. Further defines beneficial use and diversion or divert to include in- channel diversions, since these structures can command the entire flow of the river and can be used by any entity to control all our stream and water and land use issues. This bill creates a [unintelligible] approach in resolving a controversial request. The process would be a [unintelligible] agreement between the CWC and the proponent which would be jointly submitted to the Water Court. The goal is to avoid the time- conshming costly litigation process that exists today. And I think we have a couple amendments. I'd like to, Madam Chair, if we could, address those that could be possibly submitted by Senator Matsunaka. And one would be to remove the fiscal note and the other would be to have a two -tier approach. And we do have those before us. I guess the Committee has those in hand. But I'd like to be able to have those addressed while we're addressing the bill if we could. Mme. Chair: All right, Senator Entz, could you tell us which number is which, what — 004 is the appropriation removal? Sen. Entz: Yeah, 004 would be to remove the fiscal note and 005 is the two -tier approach. April 12, 2001 Page 1