Laserfiche WebLink
i <br /> • <br /> • <br /> including a State-owned -flow right, as a ay to resolve this <br /> problem with respect to this area. But I -cannot support:the specific <br /> wilderness-designation'trigger' ' included in section 4 (c) : of the bill <br /> as approved by the Committee. <br /> • . In effect,_that part of the bill says that the water.problem will be <br /> considered -."solved,'.! and the "trigger" will be-pulled for wilderness <br /> designation if either one of •two things happen--either elimination <br /> (through• voluntary cancellation or abandonment) of existing upstream <br /> water rights that threaten the future integrity:of the proposed <br /> • wilderness area; eterminatio 'l by the Colorado Water n <br /> Ccinse ritati on= Board 'regarding; whether:,or not: y.flow levels in <br /> Deep Creek are:adequate '``, In other words, he problem would 'be <br /> • <br /> considered °'solved-'.'r eny time;that:;state agency d,ecide.s one;,way or <br /> another about the adequacy of the stream flows eren if: the decisio�i... is <br /> that-:'the flows, are not adequate, and without even spelling o .t what; <br /> adequat ' means <br /> I cannot support 'that because I .hink:that jest wo ,'t` do the job`:,; "I <br /> don't;: °think i't would;be, accurate or apprs_pri'ate to .deem the problem <br /> solved. and; the °t;hreat to the wi .dern,ess remo�red soely because th.e state <br /> agency makes a cleterr tination especially;since the 'determ aaf iqn: could <br /> be_ that thore 3 znaclquate water flowing in Deep week <br /> To remedy th .s fatal fi w, <d,ur,.ng the onim ttee e d l.ibera ions T <br /> pro osed an amendme t 4 Jia't l`wou1 Yh`a e„ rep'lYaced�th5 s pdefeot�..ve <br /> wi.tlx,o . . iat-€VflAld e p € ec7. ``onog wlter if;tt�.e rzate ro'Oeth <br /> real.ly< was res�ly , t ceder m� amend�t`en ,3"t F l nes x gge ' <br /> would. p led when a 'b 1 Q two ,tbaugs r eu �=st, goutht .p al <br /> upstream ratezr rights are e 41:11' tec1.,1 and second, ;the m e ado Wate <br /> Conservation Board, under=`Colorado law, has obtained ark rnstream. flow <br /> :ri ght to aJ l the wate5e in the creel notynow c aimed by a ties with <br /> seflior rights <br /> • My amendment would have` let'.the State silly theypxoble'mz dust lake <br /> the ball z as reported_ t respected ol.oradc eater aw just like the <br /> bill' as reported nd it would'not have provided f5or ,ny fed'eral tizater <br /> ri-ht' or any, ederal action to forces they state toE act lust like -the <br /> bill gasp tepor - d <br /> Ru 4znlrike the tall as reported, my ar[ ndtt ent would ,heave assured <br /> that ail de rues stat�l t for this ar5ea wi i s t?untj. .. t Bret i - a real, <br /> soluti°on end real, adequate protetxou protectionnder Cploradc <br /> Iaw for dts Ovate 'xrgsources = And Ova thoizticYiproteotipnt whether in <br /> the form ,of my amendment or4 n$aiiott er, form that ydoes the job,, I :cannot <br /> support tla .s 1egisl.dtion,. <br /> iark>>Tdall <br /> • <br /> Colorado Water Conservation Board <br /> Flood Protection•Water Supply Planning and Financing•Stream and Lake Protection <br /> Water Supply Protection•Conservation and Drought Planning <br />