Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Senate J~urnal--174th Day--June 29, 1981 <br /> <br />June 22, 1981 <br /> <br />To The Honorable <br />Colorado State Senate <br />Fifty-third General Assembly <br />First Regular Session <br />State Capitol <br />Denver, Colorado S02D3 <br /> <br />Ladies and Gentlemen: <br /> <br />Seqa~e~1J~ .Concerning the Establishment of Prin- <br />ciples and ~ imitations which Govern Appropriations of <br />Water made by the Colorado Water Conservation Board for <br />the Purpose of Preserving the Natural Environment to a <br />Reasonable Degree Pursuant to Section 37-92-102 (3), <br />Colorado Revised Statutes 1973," was r..ec~jv.ed_by' the <br />Governor's Office_.on_June_l0,__1gel. . As of -tHfs <br />wri ni1g7, ..6a.~:eJe ither_app!,.oved_nor.. .vetoed..J'li .s.. ..a_ct. <br />Therefore, .in accordance with the provisions of Article <br />IV, Section II, of the Colorado State Constitution, this <br />act has become law and will be filed with the Secretary <br />of State. <br /> <br />Although I question the symbolic and practical purposes <br />of new legislation which sim;>ly restates existing law <br />and administrative practices. I have allowed Senate <br />Sill 414 to become law without my signature. As you <br />know, I have be~n a ~ long time su:::,porter of Co lorado I s <br />minimum stream flow program. and it is my desire to see <br />that progren continued. Protection of our streams pro- <br />vides econcmlic, recreational and environmental benefits <br />to a large p",tion of our State's population and need not <br />conflict with the much needed development of our water <br />resources. However. as questions have been raised about <br />the potential for conflicting interpretations of Senate <br />Bill 414, [ am not partic.!iarly enthusiasti~ about <br />signing~l-S legislation but will allow it. to become law <br />with the following reaso"s in mind: <br /> <br />1. It is my undarstanding that Senate Bill 414 <br />is a compromise measure which addresses the <br />concerns of water users with regard to po- <br />tential administrative abuses without) ir. <br />any way. jeopardizing the State's ability to <br />acquire and protect instream flows. <br /> <br />2. I have received extensive legal assurances <br />that Senate Bi 11 414 does not subordinate <br />lIlinimum stream flow water rights to future <br />changes or exchanges, but does allow contin- <br />uation of exchangeS or practices in <br />existence at the time such minimum flow <br />appropriations are made. <br /> <br />. 3. I hope Senate Bill 414 will put this issue <br />to rest and neutralize future possible ef- <br />forts to repeal the' minimum stream flow <br />program. <br /> <br />I commend the efforts of the many diverse interests that <br />worked constructively on this compromise legislation and <br />hope this'resu'lts in a precedent for reducing the polar- <br />ization which has occurred in the past on so many water <br />issues. : In addition. I wish to strongly reaffirm this <br />adm1nistrat;onls enthusiastic ~upport for continuation <br />of the minimum stream flow program. <br /> <br />r=...,ii1Ja....I:':,./K-r;: Ir-.-L <br />f) <br />Ji.!::2.2i961 1~4.0 Pill <br /> <br /> <br />'SE':i1ETARYOF11-tEScMlho <br /> <br />" <br />