Laserfiche WebLink
<br />v-'". <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />polish up the details, because I know - it <br />has been said to me repeatedly - that the <br />legislature is looking to this Board for <br />some guidance. So I urge you, before you <br />adjourn today, to take a stand on it and to <br />be able to recommend something in principle <br />to the legislature. <br /> <br />I think that is all I have, Mr. Kroeger." <br /> <br />MR. I<ROEGER: <br /> <br />"Thank you, Ray. <br /> <br />Mr. John Sayre has, I thin~ a comment <br />that he would like to make. John, will you <br />come to the corner and speak loudly, please." <br /> <br />MR. SAYRE: <br /> <br />"Mr. Chairman, I'm speaking today on <br />behalf of the Consolidated Ditches in Dis- <br />trict #2 and it is only to one item in this <br />bill. I've discussed this with Mr. Sparks <br />before. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />It seems to me this bill has been <br />directed primarily toward the integration <br />of the underground and surface waters and <br />it is a permissive bill as has been pointed <br />out so well by Mr. Moses. There is one <br />section of this bill though that has nothing <br />to do with integration of water whatsoever, <br />at least underground and surface users. It's <br />a very controversial issue. It is presently <br />being litigated in the District Court of <br />Jefferson County. I think it has no place <br />in this particular bill. I'm sure that the <br />proponents may have a good argument, have <br />a right and if they want it, they should <br />introduce a separate bill into the legisla- <br />ture for consideration. But I hate to see <br />it included in this bill. That is the one <br />that appears on page 24, 148-2-15 on the <br />'Right to reuse of imported water'. It has <br />been changed somewhat since the February <br />13th draft. It certainly fs a problem. <br />There is no doubt about that. <br />