Laserfiche WebLink
<br />ff,:;'.':' <br /> <br />;l:,. <br /> <br />~' <br />'t". <br /> <br />n,' <br /> <br />~<',:-,. . <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />to;"" <br />.-'.. <br />rr: <br /> <br />.:' <br />.'.. <br /> <br />eo' <br />, <br /> <br />'. <br /> <br />, <br />" <br />~ " <br />1,.: <br />.: <br />" <br />~' <br /> <br />h <br /> <br />'" <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />M.l1 \) 1 <br /> <br />, ," <br /> <br />. .~. <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />'.... i:....,,';:...:' <br />i " . . <br />llIeasure specifies that vater conservancy lU1d vater conservation districts include <br />all governlllental and political subdivisions. either existing or that llIay be <br />, created. 'that 'have, or vill have, substantially similar purposes and functions <br />as such districts. <br /> <br />( <br /> <br />The llIeasure peraits the ownership of vater rights to be decreed to the <br />public and dedicated to the benefit of a particular vater systelll, vithout <br />hindrance frolll a state or other governlllental body. The llIeasure requires that the <br />vater conservation board or any governlllent subdivision vith a. similar purpose and <br />function accept and protect the publics' ownership,of decreed vater interests <br />from transfer and requires the state to defend dedications of decreed vater <br />interests as a.' _tter, of the ~tat.' s public trust in vaters. ." <br /> <br />. ' <br /> <br />This .easure could have a substantia.l. negative fisca.l impact on the state <br />and local governlllents;' Sta.te enforcelllent of the 'public', trust doctrine as' <br />required ,by' this .easure could"result in an indeteridnate. but significant. <br />increase in'funds 'required for lega.l proceedings. Enforce.ent of the public <br />trust'doctrine coul~ also 'result in the 'tAking' of private property under the <br />state and, federal constitutions" necessitating state or local 'payment ,of <br />co.pensation to o_ers' of, vater rights. ',The public trust doctrine _y decrease <br />the,&Douutof vater available to Colorado .local go~etnaents in supplying vater <br />to' 'the public and III&Y' result. in an'increase in its coilt; This cost would have <br />to be borne by the ,Colorado local goveruJllents involved and ultimately the <br />taxpayers. <br /> <br />The require.ents that directors of vater districts be elected and that <br />bounda.ry changes be approved by the voters could also negatively impact these <br />districts. Current lav provides a simplified procedure for district boundary <br />changes resulting fro. llIunicipal annexations. The election reql1irelllents in the <br />llIeasure vould hold any such changes in abeyance until an election is held. Such <br />a delay could affect revenue to the district and vater availability to the city <br />or to_. Electing directors of vater districts' vould also require these <br />districts to expend llIore revenues than under current appointment procedures. The <br />specific a.ounts of these illlpacts are indeterminate but could be significant. <br /> <br />( <br /> <br />4/6/94 Rebearing <br />Adjourned ',S8,p.llI. <br /> <br />l <br />