Laserfiche WebLink
we're going, just because of the level of distrust between the CWCB <br /> and anybody who goes before them or deals with them. So I would <br /> prefer the standard method but I guess I just don't know quite — I <br /> mean, have you thought about what kind of standards you could apply <br /> that made some sense in terms of a water policy for this state, other <br /> than just current case law? <br /> Mme. Chair: Representative Paulson. <br /> C. Paulson: Thank you, Madam Chair. The problem you have is this. I notice <br /> when you were talking about your amendment with sideboards, as we <br /> look at the policy implications of trying to use water to the max extent <br /> possible, it may well be that a 30 cfs or a ten cfs flow at a crucial time <br /> destroys the exchange potential. So to try and put that into a statute <br /> and then give it to the Water Court and say you can never have an <br /> exchange above ten cfs because we, in the legislature have decided <br /> that that's the limit we're going to go to. I'm not sure I'm smart <br /> enough to do it. Maybe there are some people in the room that are. <br /> And as I discussed with Senator Perlmutter, the problem we have as a <br /> public policy matter is yeah, we distrust the Conservation Board. I <br /> sure do. But I mean, we delegate to a lot of boards and agencies some <br /> discretion. And if you want to put into the .statute the criteria that you <br /> don't impair exchange potential of trans - mountain water, for instance, <br /> you don't have any ability to impair senior appropriators who might <br /> exchange their rights, that kind of thing, that will take some time. <br /> What I'm worried about is if you have no criteria for the next 12 <br /> months, you'll have a lot of competition. I could see the next water <br /> park being in Sterling. <br /> Mme. Chair: Senator Matsunaka. <br /> Sen. Matsunaka: So what happens, just hypothetically, if there's a sunset put on this bill <br /> for a year or two years, giving people a chance to develop the <br /> standards? Does that help it? <br /> C. Paulson: I think that's an excellent idea. I mean, we're — when I first saw this <br /> bill, I hated it, until you realize what the public policy implications are. <br /> I mean, we're looking at another dry year. We're looking at a need for <br /> 300 thousand acre -feet in the next 20 years. We're looking at the lead <br /> time of 20 years to build major water projects. And if we destroy in <br /> one year by inaction the ability to exchange some of these effluent <br /> systems or in some cases some of the junior water rights for municipal <br /> use, we will have missed a golden opportunity. So I'm defmitely in <br /> favor of a sunset, as long as you take action now. <br /> Mme. Chair: Senator Perlmutter. <br /> April 12, 2001 <br /> Page 25 <br />