Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />there in the argument ~efore the United states Supreme Court in Eagle <br />County. that the word "vlit.hdrawal" was no different than an appro- <br />priation. It is subject to the same requirements. the same limitations <br />and everything else. They are subject to the same limitations as all <br />of you and I don't think there is any real argument about this. <br /> <br />1'~. Cornelius: <br />give the state <br />stream flows; <br /> <br />And then. if this new legislation is passed. it will <br />legislature the power to establish these minimum <br /> <br />~~. Balcomb: Not the state legislature. <br /> <br />Hr. Cornelius: ~fuo does it give it to? <br /> <br />Mr. Balcomb: It gives it to this board. <br /> <br />l1r. Cornelius: By la\'l it says. "a minimum flo\.,r or level as shall be <br />established by la\.,r be'tvleen specific points." <br /> <br />~~. Balcomb: Well. on page 2. section 2. the amendment to the decla- <br />ration of policy. says that, the colorado !vater Conservation Board. <br />after consultation with the Division of l'1ildlife and the Division of <br />Parks and Outdoor Recreation. shall establish minimum stream flows. <br /> <br />I think the ad hoc committee agreed this board should have the primary <br />responsibility. This board represents and has represented every water- <br />shed in the state. <br /> <br />b~. Stapleton: Do the board members have any further questions of <br />~~. Balcomb? Mr. Balcomb is speaking as a member of the committee. <br />Now we will have the next member of the committee express his thoughts. <br />if he will. <br /> <br />J,~. Scott: !-~. S-tapleton. as a minority member of the ad hoc committee. <br />I \'lOuld like to make a fel'l comments that Mr. Sparks and I have gone <br />over personally as of Friday about the way we are thinking of re-doing <br />some of the possible problems with 97. Let me first say that I agree <br />with the ad hoc committee and I have testified and commented in <br />support of 97 at the hearings so far. But at the last hearing which <br />came up kind of accidently on Wednesday of last week. it suddenly <br />occurred to me abOut the way 97 is presently written and that thought <br />led to some other thoughts. But the first problem that occurred to <br />me and I discussed it \.,rith Hr. Sparks. is with reference to the way <br />"beneficial use" is being redefined and the \'lay 97 is presently written <br /> <br />-7- <br />