Laserfiche WebLink
<br />House that it was the belief of the Board that the :language should <br />read "to invest~gate and assist ~n formu~ation"? ~ <br /> <br />MR. SPARKS: I have no real problem with that: except to point: out. that <br />this statutqry duty is a very limited one and only applies to federal <br />and otner state activities.which af~ect :thewater.~esourc~ d~v~lopment. <br /> <br />The legislative connnittee:'was of tne firm :opinion that it was this.- : - <br />Board that they.were looking to'on that very narrow issue. There are <br />many other issues involved, other than water. There are wildlife and <br />numerous others. But on that narrow:issue, the committee was-very. <br />strong that this Board should be theorie which prepares the-response. <br />They went so far as put in that word "exclusive," so I'm: not~sure I <br />want to figttt with that connnitt~e very much. _ <br /> <br />MR. STAPLETON: I'd <br />to fight with them. <br />have that in, <br /> <br />MR. SPARKS: The word "exclusive" ;r think is n<?thi~g but trouble, but <br />other than that I don.' t see much problem with this bill. <br /> <br />just like to make the-statement that wecdon'i need <br />I think ii's a deterrent to our effectiveness to <br /> <br />MR. STAPLETON: I wonder -- I'm trying to get this "respond" business <br />out. I~'we:assist in the preparation, that1s all we've ever: done in: <br />the past, and it's been the force of your persuasive argument that has <br />carried the. day in terms of what the Board wanted, and I don't.think <br />that, "respond" adds anything to what we're already doing. or what you: <br />have just said you intended that we do. -: - <br /> <br />MR. SPARKS: Well, I pointed out to the legi"slature I didn't: see the <br />real neea for the bill at all, but mine-is not: to reason-why.. <br /> <br />MR. SHERMAN: I might also state there is a Statute -- I wish I had the <br />citation for ~t -~: which provides. that with respect to federal resource <br />projects, the Governor has the responsibility of-responding for the <br />State of Colorado. I think the word ~'respond'-' in the bill is. somewhat <br />inconsistent with that. <br /> <br />:: <br /> <br />As I- think-Larry knows, we had a problem recently-with another state <br />agency directly responding to .the federal government ~n the Savery-- <br />Pothook Project which caused a great deal of. consternation: within the <br />Governor's office and within the Department of Natural Resources and <br />the Water Conservation Board, and I think it would be a mistake to . - <br />open the-responsibility. on such major projects, federal water projects, <br />up to various agencies. - .- <br /> <br />I think it's got to come from the Governor. He's got. to speak for the <br />State ~fColorado.o This Board has got to continue to be the: voice in <br />shaping ~nd developing these wate~ policies and water resource poifcies <br />in the State of Colorado. . - <br /> <br />So, I would concur with_your suggestion that it read "to investigate <br />and assist in formulating a response -to the plans." I think that would <br />take care of really what.we're trying to do and probably answer'the <br /> <br />-;.34-;. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br />