Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />cons,tit,utional problem t."hich 97 seems ::0 present in the .1ay it is <br />presently ''lorded. Tha'c is if you follO\" in sequence che various <br />definitions and references in che la\" to divert beneficial use <br />starting with article XVI. section 6. che right to divert unappro- <br />priated watet to beneficial uses shall never be denied is the first <br />reference. The second one now would come in 97 which redefines divert <br />'to mean also leaving the '.'1ater in the stream. And then you go to <br />the beneficial use. the redefinition in this proposed 97. and that <br />defines beneficial use to mean that only the state of Colorado can <br />put instream waters to beneficial uses. So you come right back. the <br />full circle to very obvious inconsistencies we thought between this <br />new 97 and article XVI. section 6, which guarantees every citizen. <br />including l-lr. S"unders and everybody else in the state of Colorado. <br />the right to divert to beneficial uses any unappropriated waters. If <br />divert means leaving the water in the stream, they are being denied <br />that right by the beneficial use definition. It is just sort of a <br />tricky little play on words. I don't know if they got there acci- <br />dently or not. but it would seem to me it would be wise to eliminate <br />that right off the bat. There is already enough of a problem. <br />l~. Sparks. I believe correctly remarks as to the general problem the <br />Rocky Mountain Power case presents. But this is a different. slightly <br />different slant on that constitutional aspect of Senate Bill 97. <br /> <br />It would seem that if you just left out the definition of or any <br />reference to the word "divert" or "diversion" in the definition section. <br />and doctored up the rest of Senate Bill 97 which would be easy to do <br />because you wouldn't necessarily have to cross out every word of <br />"divert" or "diversion". You would just cross it out where it needs <br />to be crossed out. There are only two places. Then you wouldn't <br />have that problem. You would have then the situation in which the <br />state of Colorado. through the water board. would be guaranteed by <br />statute the right to appropriate waters in the streams for the benefit <br />of the people to preserve the environment. And that would be the way <br />I read the law. anyway. And it wouldn't conflict or even have any- <br />thing to do with section 6. You still would have the ooncern of <br />Mr. Sparks' opinion that you are going to have problems with section <br />6. but you don't have obvious problems. You could at least eliminate <br />that aspect of it and that was the essence of my comments to Fred. <br />I think I left something out of my comments. That would be if you <br />keep going around in circles, you would want to and I am not sure <br />exactly how to change or leave out the word "diversion" in section 7 <br />on the first page of the printed bill where it is talking about <br />beneficial use. <br /> <br />-9- <br />