SB01-216 Senate Committee on Public Policy and Planning

Home Browse Search

Jo Evans: Sorry. And in the interest of the committee's time, we thought we would come up together and try to save — try to get you out earlier, to the extent that we can help. And I've also been asked if I would simply share with you that the Sierra Club also opposes Senate Bill 216 and concurs with the statements that Trout Unlimited will be making. Recreational in- channel diversions are a necessary and legitimate component of our current water right systems. We believe that Water Court adjudication prevents injury to all other decreed rights and assures that the water allocated will be no more than necessary for the beneficial use stipulated and that there's no need for this bill. I would leave the balance of our statement to Ms. Custer, because she's the attorney and I am not. Mme. Chair: Thank you, Ms. Evans, Ms. Custer? Kelly Custer: Thank you, Madam Chair. TU respectfully opposes this bill for several reasons. One of the most important beneficial uses of water is recreation. And it becomes more important with the arrival of every tourist and every new resident in the state who demand water for not only consumptive uses, such as domestic purposes, but also for the recreation that our state has become so famous for. Recreation is a recognized beneficial use under the law now, as are fisheries and esthetics and riparian vegetation, all values associated with clean, flowing streams. The reason that these uses are recognized as beneficial uses under law is that people have demanded recognition of water rights for uses they value. And courts have complied by issuing decrees for these types of water rights. Recreational water rights are private, diversionary water rights. Our constitution contains a guarantee to all persons that the right to appropriate waters for beneficial use shall never be denied. This bill would deny that right to all but local governments. Private diversionary water rights are the foundation of the culture and economy of our state. We wouldn't have ranching without private diversionary water rights. We wouldn't have towns and cities without private diversionary water rights. And in some places now we wouldn't have recreation without private diversionary water rights. The Water Conservation Board has [unintelligible] to propose legislation which would.limit this last type of private diversionary water right for recreation. The Water Conservation Board though has a forum now in which its issues and concerns with these types of water rights may be addressed. And that forum is Water Court. Water Court is the place for making determinations about disputed facts. It's true that there are seven Water Courts around the state. That's the way it's been for the last 100 plus years. That's what our system is. Any time April 12, 2001 Page 18