My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
SB01-216 Senate Committee on Public Policy and Planning
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
3001-4000
>
SB01-216 Senate Committee on Public Policy and Planning
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/8/2010 9:03:31 AM
Creation date
6/2/2010 12:06:13 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
Description
SB01-216
State
CO
Basin
South Platte
Water Division
1
Date
4/12/2001
Author
Senate Committee on Public Policy and Planning
Title
SB01-216 Senate Committee on Public Policy and Planning
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
41
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
heard. And I'll just highlight them very quickly so as to not take up <br /> very much of your time. <br /> We believe the process of the Water Courts works very well. The <br /> concerns that a couple of senators have already expressed are exactly <br /> the ones that we find objectionable to this new overlay process that <br /> they have proposed. In particular in Breckenridge, our kayak course is <br /> under construction. And we have filed for the appropriate water <br /> rights. And we are not grandfathered. So we are anticipating an <br /> unknown risk factor in cost to completing our process from what we <br /> thought were the rules of the game when we started. That's very <br /> disconcerting. <br /> We also feel that this new process could very well threaten an existing <br /> vested property interest that we have within [unintelligible] within the <br /> Blue River where we're proposing the kayak park. Breckenridge is <br /> quite proud of the past history that we had with the stewardship of the <br /> Blue River in which we've actually restored the Blue River to a river <br /> as opposed to a dredge lock area. And so we take our stewardship and <br /> the protection of the environment seriously. <br /> And we also try to overlay our economy with a year -round economy, <br /> using recreational menus, such as the whitewater park and have <br /> invested millions of dollars doing those types of recreational amenities <br /> to strengthen not only our local economy, but also the state economy. <br /> We believe this bill would shift the balance of impartiality that the <br /> Water Court brings and we do not have faith that the CWCB will be <br /> impartial in evaluating these types of uses, given their past history and <br /> some of the ways that we have gone about adjudicating other water <br /> rights. And I'll let the rest of the comments that other people have <br /> made already speak for the rest. <br /> Mme. Chair: Thank you, Mr. Gagin. Are there questions? Senator Matsunaka. <br /> Sen. Matsunaka: You filed for your water right now? <br /> T. Gagin: We filed in December, but it was after December 1St <br /> Sen. Matsunaka: And did you have to — how many cubic feet per second did you ask <br /> for? <br /> T. Gagin: I think we're right at 500 cfs. <br /> Sen. Matsunaka: And with respect to the river flows, is that all of it, or half of it or <br /> three- quarters of it? <br /> April 12, 2001 <br /> Page 22 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.