BOARD01265

• Board Meeting Date: 3/21/2002
• Description: Future Water Storage, Delivery, Mitigation and Incentives
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

11=
COLoraDO Farm Bureau

9177 East Mineral Circle . Englewood, Colorado 80112 . [phone] . FAX [phone]
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 5647, Denver, Colorado 80217

March 22, 2002

Mr. Donald Schwindt
Chair, Colorado Water Conservation Board
1313 Sherman Street
Centennial Building
Denver, Colorado 80203

Dear Mr. Schwindt:

Colorado Farm Bureau, the state's largest agricultural organization, is adamantly opposed SB 02-
156, the instream flow legislation. The CFB Board of Directors has reaffirmed our opposition
even to the "compromise" amendment to SB 156. We are aggressively urging the defeat of this
bill.

We understand that the Colorado Water Conservation Board, which once opposed SB 156, has
now taken a new position to support the bill. We respectfully urge you to reconsider your
position, and oppose the bill as you once did.

Let me state very clearly of the critical importance this legislation has on our state's agricultural
industry. Colorado Farm Bureau, and our ag industry, was never directly consulted when the bill
was introduced, nor about the Administration's compromise. That is~ry disturbing in that
agriculture is more impacted by this than virtually any other industry or group. Agriculture uses
more water than any other entity and is left out ofthe discussion on this compromise. We need a
clear explanation as to how this bill helps agriculture.

For the record, Colorado Farm Bureau has never supported any type of compromise language
with regard to SB 02-156. We support the current statutory language governing the Instream
Flow Program. We believe that the Colorado Water Conservation Board continues to make
informed and credible judgments with regard to creating new instream flows. We see no reason
to change the current law.

We want to recognize that the "compromise" amendment, which was adopted by the Senate
Appropriations Committee, is a significant improvement in that it no longer allows private
ownership of instream flows. However, the addition of the language with regard to "improving"
the natural environment remains unacceptable. Our ~oncem is that by expanding the criteria
beyond "preserve" to include improvements of the environment, that the CWCB may be creating
a possibility that donations may involve water quality issues. To date, the Board has
successfully left that to the Water Quality Control Commission, the Water Quality Control
Division and other agencies in the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment.

Uving beside you. WorkJngfor you,