Laserfiche WebLink
Moreover the amendments that Matsunaka has <br /> suggested exempts Golden entirely, and addresses <br /> many of the other issues raised by opponents of the <br /> bill. <br /> Under the existing case law, there is a distinct <br /> potential for recreational in channel diversion's to be <br /> used for mischief or NIMBY ( "not in my back yard ") <br /> purposes, to prevent future upstream water <br /> development, to prevent exchanges and changes of <br /> water rights. <br /> Finally, the water courts are not equipped to deal <br /> with water policy matters that are implicit with <br /> recreational in channel diversion applications. <br /> Such as who represents future water users, or water <br /> users that are not a party to the litigation but may be <br /> impacted. Under the current system, the water court <br /> does not address these issues, and is not required to <br /> consider these issues. <br /> We are faced with a court created water right -it is the <br /> General Assembly's responsibility to provide for <br /> water right classifications. We are faced with a need <br /> to react to a process that has created a race to the <br /> courthouse. <br />