SB01-216 Senate Committee on Public Policy and Planning

Home Browse Search

discussion about what the criteria should be and what the impact is on the rest of the people in the state. Chairman: Oh, I'm the Chairman. Sen. Perlmutter: Hi, Senator Perlmutter. Thank you Mr. Chairman. But in those hypotheticals you're giving us, prior to being able to file, if they follow through with the court process, they're going to have to have expended, you know, Golden said they spent a bunch of money on their course and other cities or communities that file, would have to have put this water to some beneficial use and would have had to have expended some funds. 1 mean, it isn't like they're just going to walk over to the court and say we want 1000 cfs. Mr. Paulson. C. Paulson: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Paulson. You actually have had testimony about two different ways under the current system that people have done it. Golden already built their infrastructure, then filed for the water right. Breckenridge filed for the water right and then built the infrastructure. That's under the current system. Chairman: OK. Any other questions for Mr. Paulson? Thank you very much. Taylor Hawes, thank you for coming. Would you please state your • name for the record and who you represent. Taylor Hawes Yes, my name is Taylor Hawes. I'm with the Northwest Colorado Council of Governments Water Quality /Quantity Committee, • otherwise known as the Q/Q Committee. I'm also here on behalf of the River District, the Colorado River Water Conservation District. Chris Treece [s] got stuck in Nebraska or Chicago in the snowstorm. So Northwest Colorado Council of Governments Q/Q Committee represents local governments in six headwaters regions, Grand County, Summit County, Eagle County, Pitkin County, Gunnison County and Park County, as well as the towns in those counties and the water and sanitation districts in those counties. Q/Q is not opposed to the concept behind this bill as we have discussed, but we are strongly opposed to the bill as written. We don't see why the CWCB should have this elevated role on just these types of water rights. We believe that review of recreational in -stream flow rights should stay in Water Court. As many people have said, it's not broke, the system is not broken. Obtaining a water right is an expensive complex and confusing process. And why are we going to make it more complex, more confusing for the applicant and more expensive for the applicant? We don't believe in creating this second layer and we don't understand why these rights should be treated differently than other water rights. April 12, 2001 Page 29