SB01-216 Senate Committee on Public Policy and Planning

Home Browse Search

And then local government entities who file for in- channel diversions would be required to follow these procedures. The appropriations clause is being requested to be stricken. The reason for that is that the Water Conservation Board meets six times a year. Their — They have experience in rule making. So this would be a — probably a proposed rule making publication a rule making. And then as the applicants came before the Water Conservation Board, the recommendations of the board would be presented, of the staff, would be presented to the Board for action in the same way that the Water Conservation Board now deals with their in- stream flow rights. That's the substance of the bill. The amendments that are being offered, if Senator Matsunaka wishes me to address those, I will. The amendments being offered really plays a sideboard on what rights or what filings would come before the Board and what filings would go immediately to Water Court. It was felt that a filing of more than 50 second feet, or feet cubic feet per second would be of sufficient magnitude to require a hearing before the Board. Any filing of 50 second feet or less could go directly to Water Court and it would viewed more in a diminimous manner rather than a major filing. That's primarily the substance of the amendments. There were several places in the statute where it talked about going to the Board for a hearing. So I think you'll find that identified in several places. And I would certainly be more than happy to answer any questions. • Mme. Chair: (inaudible) Man: And I apologize for being late, but I guess having thought about this [unintelligible] every day, I just don't understand what's wrong with the Water Court system and why we have to create this new procedure. Man: Senator, we — Mme. Chair: Mr. Kuharich. R. Kuharich: We have a handout, I think, if you haven't received it, Dan Recolick [sp] can give you a copy of that. Rather than going to Water Court immediately, it's felt that with seven different Water Courts and the Supreme Court being the arbiter of that, many people would be forced to defend their water rights, to file statements of opposition in these cases and expend significant funds for litigation. The Board in promulgating the rules and regulations and holding the hearing, it's very easy for individuals and the small municipalities or counties that do not have the resources to sustain a litigation in the Water Court would have the hearing and would be — their concerns would be taken into consideration by the Board. April 12, 2001 Page 5