My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD01014
CWCB
>
Chatfield Mitigation
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
1001-2000
>
BOARD01014
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 2:57:05 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 6:48:38 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
9/22/1988
Description
CWCB Meeting
Board Meetings - Doc Type
Meeting
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
79
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />. <br /> <br />be better to devote attention to other matters and leave to <br />another time the analysis of these relatively narrow water <br />rights administration questions. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Water Marketinq <br /> <br />Does water marketing make sense <br /> <br />Statement needed on state water marketing plan and management <br /> <br />It is not clear from the way in which these issues are <br />stated whether "water marketing" refers to intra- or interstate <br />transactions. If intra-state marketing is intended. the Board <br />would observe that it has long been possible under Colorado's <br />water rights system for appropriators to sell their water <br />rights. Thus. the Board is not aware of any significant policy <br />issues which need attention in this regard. <br /> <br />With respect to the issue of interstate water marketing, <br />ArtiCle 81 of Title 37, CRS. specifically speaks to this <br />question. Furthermore. this statute was thoroughly debated <br />when it was repealed and reenacted in 1983. with further <br />amendments made in 1985. Thus. the state's policy with respect <br />to the diversion of waters from Colorado has been thoroughly <br />explored in recent years. <br /> <br />In addition. it is important to note that the question of . <br />interstate marketing will turn ultimately on the compacts and <br />U.S. Court decrees to which Colorado is SUbject. Therefore. in <br />the Board's opinion not much would be gained by study of this <br />category of issues since state law and pOlicy can only reflect <br />what is permitted by the relevant compacts and decrees. <br /> <br />State Aqency Orqanization <br /> <br />Consideration of a state water 8uthority <br /> <br />*Transfer of the Water Quality Control Division and Commission <br />to the Department of Natural Resources <br /> <br />There are several reasons whY the Board does not b~lieve <br />that it would be appropriate for it to examine these issues. <br />First. it has no particular expertise with regard to <br />organizational and institutional arrangements. To the extent <br />that the question is one of managerial and organizational <br />efficiency. there are others better equipped than the Board to <br />analyze these issues. <br /> <br />Second. the notion of a "state water authority" seems to <br />contemplate a state agency which would have power to direct <br />how. when. where. and under what circumstances water is used. <br />Unless and until major changes are made in our current water <br />rights system and laws. it is futile to talk about such an <br />agency, for it would have no such role to play. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />-4- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.