Senate Bill 212 Transcript: Exhibit A-B

Home Browse Search

t 6 out there on the Colorado River. Well, that is not a beneficial use. On the other hand, if an entity such as The Nature Ca'nservancy has gone out and paid good money for the purchase of water rights, it seems to me that it is very difficult to make an argument-that an entity such as that ought to be denied the right to acquire instream flow water rights. if a distinction must be drawn, and I'm not* certain that one must be drawn, why -not the draw the distinction Of at feast those private citizens and organizations which purchase water on the one hand versus those which would like t6 appropriate unappropriated water. In the unappropriated water context there is admittedly a concern that it may be difficult to decide who to say no to. But in the situation of purchase on the free market it seems to me that the State of Colorado has for many years trusted -the market place to fairly allocate the resource. And if -a farmer is willing to sell his or her water right to a privaate conservation organization for a million dollars - -i+ seems to me that the market place is determine-.d with that instream flow use is a higher value than.the agricultural use, and the legislature ought not to second guess that determination. Another line that might be drawn, if a line must be drawn, is to draw-one between private individuals and governmental entities. Why must they For instance be a Division of Parks, a Division of Wildlife should not 'be authorized to appropriate or otherwise acquire water for instream flow purposes? I find it difficult to understand why it is essential to have that function only within a state agency. If we are concerned about Joe Schmoe, thine, let's address our concerns to keeping Joe Schmoe out of*the instream flow program, but by the same token there is no need to shut th door to every other state governmental —10—