My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Senate Bill 212 Transcript: Exhibit A-B
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
3001-4000
>
Senate Bill 212 Transcript: Exhibit A-B
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/14/2010 1:19:22 PM
Creation date
6/11/2010 11:40:14 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
Description
SB 01-216, Recreational In-Channel Diversions
State
CO
Date
5/28/1987
Author
Senate Committee on Agricultre, Natural Resources and Energy
Title
Senate Bill 212 Transcript: Exhibit A-B
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Court Documents
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
107
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
entity that has a legitimate reason for being <br />involved in this position. And the question of <br />federal acquisition is made through a particularly <br />delicate problem. We have heard for years and years <br />that the.State of Colorado and also the mountain west <br />that it is about time that the federal government <br />stand in line just like every other citizen when it <br />wants a water right. We don't like the idea that the <br />federal government is coming in with-reserved water <br />rights and other preemptive water rights that don't <br />fit in with the state system. Why can't they just go <br />into water court or to the State Engineer's Office, <br />whatever the procedure is, and acquire water just <br />like everyone else. In fact now, what we are seeing <br />is that the federal government is starting to do <br />exactly what we have been asking them to do for a <br />dozen years. We have an example up in Estes Park in <br />the.Roeky Mountain National Park. Up there the Park <br />Services filed for an instream flow water right, one <br />that they acquired through purchase of an in holding <br />which they used for agriculcure. And now that the <br />federal government has done what we said we wanted <br />them to.do, we're closing the door and saying "no, <br />You are not allowed to hold an instream flow water <br />right ". This is a problem that would not have been <br />addressed by the current language of the bill, but <br />does provides unlimited recognition of federal water <br />rights bu.t only in the context of federal reserved <br />water. rights. A Rocky Mountain Park water right is <br />not a reserved water right because it did not exist <br />at the time of the initial reservation and we'd have <br />the same problem any time the federal government <br />sought to appropriate water for secondary purposes.or <br />for purposes related to land that can not be <br />reserved. It seems to.me that if we want to reduce <br />the level of conflict and tension between the federal <br />—11— <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.