Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I. Should chanqes be made 1n the Groundwater Management Act of <br />1965? <br /> <br />The Comm1ttee d1d not reach consensus on a recornmendat10n <br />to amend the Act, but 1t recogn1zes several of the Act's <br />shortcom1ngs. See Sectlon II, J. If changes are to be made 1n <br />the Act, the Comm1ttee recommends that: <br /> <br />1. The powers of the Groundwater Comm1sslon should be conf1ned <br />to po11cy matters, leav1ng techn1cal matters to the State <br />Eng1neer; <br /> <br />2. The compos1t1on of the Cornmlss10nts membersh1p should be <br />changed; <br /> <br />3. The pr10r1ty l1st under C.R.S. 5 37-90-109 should be <br />ellm1nated. <br /> <br />4. The Comm1ttee was d1v1ded on whether the Act should be <br />extended to g1ve the Comm1ss1on powers over all <br />nontr1butary groundwater rather than only the groundwater <br />1n des1gnated bas1ns. Some suggested abo11sh1ng the <br />Comm1ss10n. <br /> <br />J. What are the f1scal 1mpacts of the system? <br /> <br />The Commlttee recommends careful analys1s of any <br />leg1slat1ve proposal to determ1ne the costs and benef1ts. Fee <br />structures, costs, and other poss1ble sources of revenue must <br />be evaluated. Pr1vate costs must also be cons1dered. <br /> <br />IV. CONSIDERATION Of SPECIFIC PROPOSALS. <br /> <br />The Groundwater Leg1slat1on Comrn1ttee spent several weeks <br />cons1der'ng two rather d1fferent leg1slat1ve approaches. <br /> <br />-24- <br />