My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CWCB vs. Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District - Adjudication of RICD under SB 01-216
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
4001-5000
>
CWCB vs. Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District - Adjudication of RICD under SB 01-216
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/16/2010 12:39:05 PM
Creation date
7/14/2010 3:45:43 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
Description
Gunnison RICD
State
CO
Basin
Gunnison
Water Division
4
Date
3/14/2005
Author
CWCB, Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District
Title
CWCB vs. Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District - Adjudication of RICD under SB 01-216
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.
/
56
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
Collins 830 P.2d 915, appropriators could obtain high <br />recreational in- channel flows, severely hindering Colorado's <br />future development by either exporting or just tying up large <br />amounts of water. According to Senator Entz, SB 216's sponsor <br />in the Senate: <br />"Entities could use the current law [Senate <br />Bill 87 -212, Ch. 269, 1987 Colo. Sess. Laws <br />1305 (codified as amended at § 37 -92- 102(3), <br />C.R.S. (2004))] to claim very high flows at <br />the State borders to essentially export <br />water to California, Kansas and other states <br />for use outside the State of Colorado. And <br />if Senate Bill 216 does not pass this year, <br />the flood gates could be opened and we'd <br />have a run on the courthouse." <br />Apr. 12 Senate Hearings (statement of Sen. Lewis H. Entz). <br />Representative Spradley, the House sponsor, concurred: <br />"A need for this legislation has come as a <br />result of certain local districts filing <br />very large water claims for in- channel water <br />diversions for recreational purposes. These <br />are for boat chutes and kayak runs <br />primarily. It makes sense that attention be <br />given to the impact of these recreational <br />uses on our state's future abilities to <br />development and use of water resources." <br />Transcript of Audio Tape: House Deb. on SB01 -216, 63rd Gen. <br />Ass., 1st Reg. Sess. (Colo. May 8, 2001) (statement of Rep. Lola <br />Spradley) (on file with Colorado State Archives). In addition, <br />testimony during the Senate hearings on SB 216 bolstered this <br />concern: <br />"Now, here are two existing decrees for <br />water rights of this type. One is Ft. <br />35 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.