Laserfiche WebLink
<br />as per the ad hoc committee's linguistic recommendations. That's on <br />'the last page of 'the director' s memo package. "Beneficial use" is <br />'completely and I think maybe inadvertently linked to the act of the <br />state through the sta'te \'later board to appropriate water. Tha't this <br />is the only way there can be under 97 "A beneficial use of \"ater in <br />the streams to preserve the natural environment to a reasonable <br />degree." <br /> <br />I ,think ,that the intent of everybody involved, including the ad hoc <br />committee, has always been to be a li::tle more flexible about that to <br />provide for the state of Colorado as the proper entity in this matter <br />to be able to acquire water in the streams through the acquisition of <br />water rights being legal and legitimate, but short of condemnation. <br />I don't think anybody at this point and time is thinking of condemna- <br />tion. but they are thinking of purchase. et cetra. <br /> <br />Pi~~in County is a classic case inasmuch as there could be a chance <br />for the water board to step in and acquire by gift or otherwise. a <br />lot of water in the stream to preserve, some of those streams that are <br />presently fully decreed for various classes of beneficial purposes. <br />for iggigation. et cetra. And that is why I have a memo here which I <br />showed to Fred Anderson. I explained that it would be a good idea to <br />insert the word "acquisi'cion" after "appropriation" at line 19. \.,rhich <br />is line 19 on the official printed Senate bill. <br /> <br />i,~.Stapleton: <br />an Exhibit B. <br /> <br />I think most of us have just <br /> <br />Where would that go on? <br />Oh. I see it. <br /> <br />Mr. Scott: Mr. Sparks has told me, and I think I am sure he is right. <br />that maybe the word "appropriation" is broad enough. It has been <br />decided by the courts. et cetra, to do anything with the "'ater right. <br />but it worries me if somebody wouldn't interpret it that way. <br /> <br />i'~" Stapleton: 'l7e have a printed bill no\.,r. c'7here would it be? <br /> <br />lu-. Scott: It would be on line 19, Mr. Stapleton, on your version too. <br />I think it is an exact duplicate of the printed version. I briefly <br />discussed this with Fred Anderson and some of the others in the <br />committee and they seemed to agree and they were worried about putting <br />in a provision also that would negate the possibility of condemnation <br />of pm'ler and eminent domain. I think Hr. Sparks has talked to Fred <br />about that. But that was the first point that worried me about the <br />way 97 is written. And then anocher thing that we talked about which <br />,is much more serious is that there is a different slant to the <br /> <br />-8- <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br />