Laserfiche WebLink
<br />610 <br /> <br />before June, 1957'. Also change the <br />last line of paragraph 3 by inserting <br />the word 'continued' before the word <br />, study' . <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I have a suggested Paragraph 9 as <br />fo Hows : <br /> <br />9. That the critical situation in some <br />underground water areas requires pas- <br />sage of some legislation at this Session <br />to regulate development of additional <br />wells. <br /> <br />Also, I have a suggested Paragraph <br />10: <br /> <br />10. That the Colorado Water Conserva- <br />tion Board favor the vesting of any State <br />wide control of underground water enacted <br />by the General Assembly in the Colorado <br />Water Conservation Board rather than in <br />a separate groundwater commission but that <br />administrative functions be vested in the <br />State Engineer. <br /> <br />Perhaps we could consider these <br />amendments before we consider the whole <br />resolution." <br /> <br />MR. MOSES: <br /> <br />"What is your reaction to these amend- <br />ments, gentlemen?" <br /> <br />MR. B!U(NARD: <br /> <br />"I feel the amendments would satisfy <br />the apparent objections to the resolution <br />in its present form. However, in Para- <br />graph 10 we are recommending to the Legis- <br />lature in respect to one portion of the <br />underground water bi~l. This question <br />comes to my mind; by way of background, it <br />appears that several individuals and vari- <br />ous organizations have spent a lot of time <br />in studying and preparing underground water <br />legislation. As I recall, off hand, the <br />duties of the Colorado Water Conservation <br />Board are to determine water policy within <br />certain areas within the State of Colorado. <br />All these other interested agencies have <br />introduced, or proposed, legislation and <br />this Board, so far as I know, has never <br />considered the legislation which is pro- <br />posed or which has been proposed. <br /> <br />I <br />