My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD01398
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
1001-2000
>
BOARD01398
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 3:01:24 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 6:54:36 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
7/24/2000
Description
CWCB Director's Report
Board Meetings - Doc Type
Memo
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
60
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 />. <br /> <br />Edward Kowalski <br />Dimiel McAuliffe <br />July 20, 2000 <br />I'ab\c 5 <br /> <br />basin withonl any oppornmiry for a de novo review by thc couns. Undoubtedly, any effort by the <br />ewen to expand its authority into tills area will cau~e serious dissention and prescnt an <br />opportunity Cor the State Legislatnre to debatc and reconsider the authority already givcn to the <br />CWCB uoder 813 64. <br /> <br />Also, kayak eomse appropriations require diversion and control strucmres that arc very <br />cxpensivc. Iflhe CWCB is going to attempt to expand its authority into this area, is the CWCB <br />going t(> pay for the eost of ~uch slnlcturcs? Will it ub,,'ee to be liable for any bodily injury, loss <br />or damage "ULL~ecl by such /I course? These questions demonstrate the fundamental differences <br />bdwccll a kayak CO\l1'se w:ILcr right that involves major engineering and capital investment, and <br />an illstroam !low water right which only requires an R-2 cross section and involves no <br />canst rlletion. <br /> <br />Perhaps most troubling "bout the st3fT memo, however, is the underlying "big brothel''' <br />theme thilt only the CWCJ3 is responsible enough to initiate and hold such a water right. Such a <br />nolion is rCptlgllilnt to the very foundation of Colorado water law. Should it come to that, we <br />Jirlllll' believe that the State Legislature will ultimately agree. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />In summary, the "problems" raised by the mt:mo are exaggerated or have a faulty <br />pn:misc. To the extent that they do exist, they arc sufficiently addressed by the many controls <br />ingrained in Colorado water law. To the extent the identified "problems" stem from a desire for <br />more Stale eonlrol, stIch an effort needs to be resisted and opposed at all eost. <br /> <br />Thank you for rhis oPPol'lUnity to comment. <br /> <br />Sincerely, <br /> <br />PORZAK BROWNING & BUSHONG LLP <br /> <br />a~ <br />~- ~. <br />Glenn E. P<lO.A <br />Special Water Counsel for the City (lCGolden <br /> <br />ec: Greg Walcher (viaj(rcsimile) <br />Dan I-lmiman (via facsimile) <br /> <br />. ]lImo:!':) <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.