Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />mean "controlling '^,ater in its natural course or location." In other <br />\.,rords. ic. is believed tha'c it might be possible to redefine by stat- <br />ute the meaning of the word "divert" set forth in the cons,titution. <br /> <br />I have grave doubts abou'c the \.,risdom of allovling anyone to Clppropriate <br />"all or a portion of the natural flo\'l of a stream for recrea'tional or <br />other values 'co mankind." It seems to me that if anyone has the <br />right to appropriate all or a portion of a stream by leaving the water <br />in the stream. then such a right could cause great damage to the future <br />exercise of water rights in this state. Such a procedure would leave <br />it open to hundreds of individuals or organizations to determine what <br />they might believe to be a reasonable s'tream flow. Such rights could <br />only be exercised by filing applications in the courts. However. it <br />would be extremely difficult for the individual water judges to deter- <br />mine what an appropriate stream flow should be for "recreational or <br />other values to mankind." <br /> <br />I also have grave reservations about the advisability of attempting to <br />amend the word "divert" set forth in the constitution through a stat- <br />ute \-nlich would define "divert" as also being a nondiversion. <br /> <br />Senate Bill No. 79 as originally introduced was sent to you as Exhibit <br />A. Following the recommendations made at our recent board meeting. an <br />ad hoc committee was formed to see if any agreement could be worked <br />out concerninq Senate Bill No. 79. This committee met at the request <br />of the Board Chairman. Ben Stapleton. and subsequently revisions in <br />the bill were proposed to the Senate Committee for Agriculture. Live- <br />stock and Natural Resources. A copy of Senate Bill No. 79 as revised <br />by the ad hoc committee was sent to you as Exhibit B. The bill as <br />revised has now been introduced as Senate Bill 97. <br /> <br />As can be seen from 'the recommendations of the ad hoc committee. the <br />right to appropriate water for minimum stream flows would be vested <br />only in the state of Colorado through this board. While I feel <br />strongly that the right to establish minimum stream flows should be <br />exercised only by the state government. I still have serious reser- <br />vations as to whether or not a statutory method can be made to conform <br />to the existing constitution. The constitution states very plainly <br />that "the right to diver't the unappropriated waters of any natural <br />stream to beneficial uses shall never be denied." How then can any <br />right be derived from statutory law under the constitution which <br />would limit an appropriation for certain purposes only to the state <br />of Colorado. rather than to its individual citizens as the consti- <br />tution has always been construed? <br /> <br />-3- <br />