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
i s <br />specifically, now I am quoting Richard Lamm. "The <br />last point and I think that it is extremely important <br />to say that unlike the constitutional amendment that <br />was attempted to be initiated last year, which in <br />fact would have given any individual .th.e right to <br />appropriate waters of a stream, that this bill only <br />gives that right to the State of Colorado," and he <br />continues in the next page after a <br />that I skipped, little testimony <br />"In effect one of the things by <br />setting minimum stream flows would be an attempt in <br />effect to preserve the legal existence that does not <br />exist on any stream today any place in Colorado. So <br />by giving the power to the State of Colorado, and <br />only the State of Colorado, to make additional <br />appropriations in effect to not interfere with the <br />constitution but the constitution stands guard <br />against anybody interfering with your water rights." <br />These remarks by Representative Lamm were made to <br />Repr6se Hiram McNeil, who represented the <br />Uncompahgre Drainage at that time. Rep. McNeil's <br />questions were clearly to the effect that this might <br />have on the Uncompahgre. I think that'i.t is <br />interesting that this very clear legislative intent <br />in the House of Representatives duplicates almost in <br />.the same words what was said in the Senate. When <br />-Senator Anderson first introduced Senate Bill 97 in <br />1973, it was a very difficult thing for each of us to <br />sign on bill to put our name on a bill that was <br />different than what we had done before, the concept <br />of diverting water to flow in the stream for a <br />guaranteed minimum flow and this only and solely and <br />singly for the State of Colorado in the person <br />singularly of the Colorado Water Conservation Board. <br />Now this has been on the books for some time. <br />Something in the neighborhood of 6,000 miles.of <br />minimum stream flows have since been legally applied <br />M <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.