Laserfiche WebLink
Rep. Plant (page 7): <br />"I mean are we going to stand here we're going to tell people that their conditional water <br />right they got that before there was even any recreational, but they don't want to do this <br />with." <br />Rep. Madden (page 9): <br />"I think this bill in general is premature we don't know if even a problem, yes this big <br />huge water rights have been requested, they haven't been granted yet. I don't think they <br />should be either, but I don't know we need this law to do the courts job. It might come <br />out just the way you want it to come out. My bigger problem with this law as I strongly <br />feel that it is unconstitutional, I think it goes directly against what our constitutional <br />states which is no right to divert shall be, excuse me I want to read the exact language <br />"the right to divert shall not be denied" that's because you just get a lower list on the <br />priority." <br />Rep. Young (page 10): <br />"If you go back through the history of the evolution of water rights in the State of <br />Colorado you were using water. You weren't letting it sit in the stream so that somebody <br />could claim that it was some sort of recreational right. You know if you think about it at <br />one time, if this idea has been around maybe they could just claimed an entire river and <br />said this will be used for recreational at the state line and we have recreation right at that. <br />point and therefore, it shall be decreed some sort of aright.. ... <br />[I]f you don't believe that the court ought to be writing laws then you need to take a look <br />at the specific things that were talking about down here. And make those kinds of <br />decisions. We're here to write the laws and when it comes to this kind of law, were <br />putting some restrictions on what kind of entity i.e. can have the right to say nobody can <br />divert the water. Because we want it here for recreational purposes. It's a dangerous <br />precedence to have that happen that way, and the policy needs to be decided in these <br />chambers not in an court room." <br />Rep. Spradley (page 11): <br />Thank you, Mr. Chairman, well that is water law, that is the process, that's the way you <br />have to get a water right today, you have to apply for it. You have to get it, were not <br />taking that away. The courts have made a decision and said that were going to have <br />recreational water rights, fine. Its up to us, to say do we want set the policy for this state <br />or do we want the courts to set the policy for this state. This is an opportunity for us to <br />set the policy for this state. And I ask for a NO vote. <br />Rep. Witwer (page 12): <br />"I understand the Bill was originally drafted to be applied retro- actively to water right <br />applications already pending by Golden, Vail, Breckenridge and Aspen. I also <br />understand that as a part of a compromise Bill was amended so it's no longer retro- <br />active." <br />