Laserfiche WebLink
The headwaters region will be the region most effected by this bill. <br /> This is a recreational economy up in the headwaters region. Yet we <br /> were never consulted on this bill. We were never asked what our <br /> opinion was on these criteria. We recognize this as a double -edged <br /> sword for our region because we are at the headwaters. There could be <br /> diversions downstream, these boat chute diversions downstream. And <br /> we believe that there should be sidebars. There should be some kind <br /> of criteria, but we believe it should be in Water Court. Since when <br /> don't we trust the Water Court? It's been working pretty well for 100 <br /> years or so. <br /> We would actually be interested, as would the River District, in <br /> working with the parties over the summer. I mean this is a late bill and <br /> it hasn't given us time to really work with the parties on coming up <br /> with those criteria that we've all talked about today. I agree with Mr. <br /> Paulson that there should be criteria but we think they should be in the <br /> Water Rights Statute. We think that we need the time, because I don't <br /> think I have the answer of what those criteria are. I think we all need <br /> the time to really work out those issues. These criteria should be <br /> considered by the Water Court only, maybe they can have a special <br /> consultation with the CWCB: They don't need this elevated status. <br /> As I said the Water Court has been - around 100 years and I think it's <br /> interesting that so many of the supporters of this bill have claimed that <br /> it's been an equitable and fair system. So I don't see why we're <br /> questioning their right or their ability and capability and competency <br /> to judge these matters. <br /> This is an important issue and we think it's a really major shift in the <br /> way we go about obtaining.water rights. And we think that we should <br /> have — that there should be a lot of attention to this and that it should <br /> have the time that it needs to really figure out what those criteria are. <br /> We don't believe that it should be hastily changed at a [unintelligible] <br /> late bill status. Q/Q and the River District both hope that the <br /> committee will kill this bill and give us the opportunity over the <br /> summer to find a mutually agreeable solution. And we would be very <br /> committed to doing that and coming back with a bill that's mutually <br /> agreeable by the beginning of next session; Those are my comments. <br /> Chairman: Thank you. Any questions for Ms. Hawes? Senator Entz. <br /> Sen. Entz: If I may, the River District's been involved in this since day one. And <br /> Eric Kune [s] sits on the Colorado Conservation Board. And he's been <br /> involved in it, you're trying to say the River District hasn't been <br /> involved, they need more time. I don't know how much more time <br /> they need. I mean, this bill has been handled around here through the <br /> April 12, 2001 <br /> Page 30 <br />