BOARD01020

• Board Meeting Date: 9/21/1998
• Description: Rio Grande Basin Issues - Legislative Council Meeting on Initiatives
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

1 5.
2
. 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
. 22
23

24

25 6.
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
.

..............................................-..................................-

Responder: Ray Christensen, Colorado Fann Bureau (Opponent)

Suggested change: Page 2, line 17, add the following language:

2) The proposal is unfair for several reasons. No OTIlERFARMERS IN COLORADO HAVE TO
PAY A TAX ON TRIBUTARY GROUND WATER USE SUCH AS PRESCRIBED IN TIllS PROPOSAL. Irrigators
must pay the Public School Fund to use water that is not owned by the trust. All other assets that
the trust collects revenue from are owned by the trust. This proposal also requires that only 60
percent of the irrigators who benefit from the project's water pay the entire fee. The remaining 40
percent of irrigators who benefit from these waters would pay nothing. Also, this measure
disproportionately benefits school districts in the San Luis Valley. This is contrary to current state
policy that distributes most revenue from state trust lands equally among all school districts in the
state.

Staff comment: Agree in part. The measure does not refer to the payment as a tax. However, this
measure requires irrigators with water rights in the Rio Grande River to pay for water pumped from
beneath state trust lands. This requirement is unique.

Revised staff language:

2) The proposal is urtfair for several reasons. No OTIlER WATER USER IN COLORADO IS
REQUIRED TO PAY TO USE WATER THAT TIlEY OWN. IN ADDmON, irrigators must pay the Public
School Fund to use water that is not owned by the trust. All other assets that the trust collects
revenue from are owned by the trust. This proposal also requires that only 60 percent of the
irrigators who benefit from the project's water pay the entire fee. The remaining 40 percent of
irrigators who benefit from these waters would pay nothing. Also, this measure disproportionately
benefits school districts in the San Luis Valley. This is contrary to current state policy that distributes
most revenue from state trust lands equally among all school districts in the state.

Arguments Against

Responder: Ray Christensen, Colorado Farm Bureau (Opponent)

Suggested change: Page 2, add to argument 2 against the measure:

2) The proposal is unfair for several reasons. Irrigators must pay the Public School Fund to.
use water that is not owned by the trust. All other assets that the trust collects revenue from are
owned by the trust. This proposal also requires that only 60 percent of the irrigators who benefit
from the project's water pay the entire fee. The remaining 40 percent of irrigators who benefit from
these waters would pay nothing. Also, this measure disproportionately benefits school districts in the
San Luis Valley. This is contrary to current state policy that distributes most revenue from state trust .
lands equally among all school districts in the state. THIS PROPOSAL IS BAD FOR TIlE ECONOMIC WELL .
BEING OF AGRlCULTUREANDTIlESANLursVALLEY ASA WHOLE. THESANI.,urS VALLEY IS ALREADY
ONE OF TIlE MOST ECONOMICALLY DEPRESSED AREAS OF TIlE STATE.

Staff comment: Disagree. The proposed language is redundant and too broad. Argument number
I already specifies those individuals that are most impacted by the payment requirement. Also, this
proposal benefits school districts in the San Luis Valley by providing them with money.

August 14,1998

~
- ~ - S..1LCSIPROJEcrsIBAU0T19,jIPAYMENfSIFlNALCOM. WPD