Laserfiche WebLink
<br />hqw that woulQ cOrne about.. <br /> <br />~ <br />In any even.t, there were -many i-amifications concerning s tate :.water 2 ~ <br />policy. 2 l wa~ c~ll~d befor~.the.committee, I .said we already have a: <br />state: ag~~cy:thatr has .re~ponsibilities ,in' the water policy field, and <br />that's the :State Water BOard, . so I' fail to. see the necessity .for .:. <br />creating:some other age~cy. The question ca~ up .of what advice do we <br />give the Governor and to the legislature on various matters, particu- <br />larly .those rel~~ing to acti~i~ie~ of .the fe~eral government. : <br /> <br />......, - - "-.. ~ - "'. ,. - . .......: . . ::,.. - . :' <br />I pointed out:that-t~ere has b~en:inthe:sta~u~e foitorty.y~ars a <br />provision that. directs this Board to inve~tigate the activities of the <br />federal".g()verruneI!t .and qf o~her .~tates wli:i;.chm;i.ghtr afcfect tl1e develop_- <br />ment and use. of the water resources of the.State of Colorado. This:we <br />have done 'for.forty years. But I pointed out that statute really didn't <br />say what we: did with th.e i~vestigat.ion, :so I -s<!,id .if .you want something' <br />specific, :you lIlight ~d the wqrds, 2"tO inve~tigate .and respond" or "to <br />as.sist :in ~ormulatiI!g a respons.e to .aqtivities of the fede.ral goverimient <br />and-oth~r stat~s whi~h might <!,~feQt the ~ate~:resourcesof the:Stateof <br />Colorado." <br /> <br />'- <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I consider that. a. ver-y II!inol;' qhange, :1~ut iIl"any event,c the.::committee <br />said, "Well, t:hat looks gooq enough, .We .don't. think we need another- <br />agency. -We will: dire.c.t: you to':prepare a: r.esponse. or assist in <pre- <br />paring a response to the a.ctiv;Lt.iesof :the .federa1 government and:'other <br />states affecting the water resources of the state." <br /> <br />.... ..,..,. - :: : ':) -: - -.' <br />I pointed. out .to the c_i:ttee' that: our Board was' .not :sp,onsoringthis: : <br />legislation. We had no opportunity to present it to the Board, that <br />we:- too.k the :pos:ition :that ~w.e :were": ne.ither: for nor against :the.' bill that <br />was fina.11y drafted. :1 expres.sed that then through the Senate committee <br />her:e two: w.eeks ago.: 0 . ~ - . <br /> <br />On the floor of the Senate, an amendment was offered, I believe on third <br />read..:i;Dgc of the :bi1-1, which :added the. word:, "exclusive ,." so: the bill. now <br />reads " "It sha1.l :be: the .exclusive: duty .of'.the' Co).orado Water 'Conserva- <br />tion Board to investigate and re.spond . . ~" : <br /> <br />I: don't have..any. prob1eIl! with t.-he bi:l1 .as originally wri.tten,: but I do <br />have. a problem: with. t_he.w~rd.!'e.xclusive," b_ecause the.re :are other . <br />agencies that we rely upon for advice in many cases. The State Engineer, <br />for one, is involved in many interstate compacts. There are other <br />agencies that we rely upon to make an inpu~ on. some of these: very <br />comprehensive projects. . <br /> <br />I don't: think .th~ word "exclusive'~ adds:.imyth,ing to it.. :If i:t:-'s. our I <br />duty, th~n :it. '.s 'our duty to, :do this. . "Exc1us.ive, ": I don't. think adds <br />and it is a.troub1esome word. It seems to imply that maybe-other: <br />people shouldn't be making any input, and I think they should. <br /> <br />I wo.u1d like some. 5iirectioIl fro!ll :theBoard;o' Ie don't want to make .any <br />enemi~s in the Sena~e:o Godkno:ws we've got-enough trouble-now trying <br />to., get, approprj.at;.ionssuch as Jo.hn is: talking about. . On t-he other hand; <br />it seems to me tha,t When thj.s matte]:' comes up. in the House -- it's <br /> <br />-32- <br />