Laserfiche WebLink
<br />asking the board to pass some indication_of-their support of the bill. <br /> <br />MR. FETCHER: Larry, could you explain Section l? <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />MR. SPARKS: I set forth in the memorandum the existing statute relating <br />to the authority of the board concerning these projects. The statute <br />has been very bothersome. If you will read the last paragraph on the <br />first page of the memorandum, the pertinent part of that statute reads: <br /> <br />"The Colorado water conservation board may make available for the use <br />of the citizens of the state of Colorado or to any agency of the state <br />which is, in its opinion, best able to utilize the same, any or all <br />water and power conserved by any of the projects to which the state may <br />have ownership or control and may enter into contracts for the use of <br />said water and power with .any agency of the state. . ." <br /> <br />MR. FETCHER: What does it say, though? <br /> <br />MR. SPARKS: The problem with that section is that it doesn't say that <br />we are authorized to construct projects. It just says that we may <br />enter into contracts for any project for which we have ownership. We <br />don 1 t own anything today, so the statute is quite ambiguous:. <br /> <br />One of the things that the Governor stressed in his call, as a result <br />of the drought, was that Colorado must employ every method to conserve <br />its water. We have finite water supplies. The SaIIie water suppl:ies <br />that are available to us today, .twenty years from now will have <br />to support perhaps a population of four to five million people. We are <br />not going to get any more water. The future of Colorado is to make the <br />available water supplies go further. The Governor wanted our statute <br />amended to stress the element of wacer conservation, which is not really <br />stressed in this. present statute. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />While we're at it, we decided that we should clear: up this matter of <br />what we can actually do in construccion, because the existing statute <br />doesn't say that we are to construcC any projects in whole or in part. <br />We have assumed that authority from what is there now. The reason for <br />the modification was to make it perfectly clear that we can construct <br />projects either in whole or in part, not only construct them-but <br />rehabilitate or improve existing projects. In fact, that is what we <br />are doing. In almost every case~ we are either rehabilitating or <br />improving existing projects. <br /> <br />That explains it about the best I can explain it. You can compare the <br />wording of that language that I quoted with what is in the bill. (See <br />Appendix A for memorandum referred to.): <br /> <br />~13- <br />