My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Senate Bill 62 and Ethics in the Legislation
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
3001-4000
>
Senate Bill 62 and Ethics in the Legislation
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/23/2010 3:39:33 PM
Creation date
6/22/2010 9:38:18 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
Description
RICD News Articles
State
CO
Basin
Gunnison
Water Division
4
Date
3/29/2005
Author
Steve Glazer, The Denver Post
Title
Senate Bill 62 and Ethics in the Legislation
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
News Article/Press Release
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
Page 1 of 1
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
DenverPost.com - LETTERS <br />However, all of us as taxpaying Americans are complicit <br />in the crimes of our government. This does not by any <br />means "excuse" criminal acts against us, but if we do <br />nothing to change our behavior it will certainly "come <br />home to roost." <br />Matt Korda, Louisville <br />Senate Bill 62 and ethics in the legislature <br />Senate Bill 62, the bill to "reform" recreational in- <br />channel diversion water rights for whitewater recreation, <br />has exposed us to the best and worst of ethical behavior <br />in state government. The Colorado Water Conservation <br />District wants to limit the amount of water for <br />whitewater recreation to allow more water for <br />agricultural and municipal water development. The <br />district opposes a recreational in- channel diversion filed <br />by the Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy <br />District. <br />When SB 62 came before the agriculture and natural <br />resources committee of the House, the chair of that <br />committee, Rep. Kathleen Curry, recused herself <br />because of her past employment by the Upper Gunnison <br />water district. Even though there was no direct conflict <br />of interest, the appearance of a conflict drove her ethical <br />decision to not participate in the debate and vote on SB <br />62. <br />On the other hand, the Colorado Water Conservation <br />District, which has an obvious conflict of interest <br />because of their responsibility to review applications for <br />recreational in- channel diversions, is trying to influence <br />the legislature by unanimously supporting SB 62, which <br />places a one - size - fits -all standard on the amount of <br />water we can keep in the river for our recreation. <br />Thank you, Rep. Curry, for being the kind of ethical and <br />responsible leader this state needs more of working at <br />the Capitol. <br />SB 62 thwarts communities from attracting recreational <br />users to our rivers. It is anti -jobs, anti -rural <br />communities and anti - tourism. The House should defeat <br />SB 62. <br />Steve Glazer, Crested Butte <br />Safety of mini -bikes <br />Page 3 of 6 <br />http: / /www.denverpost.com/ Stories /0,1413,36 %257E416 %257E,OO.html 3/29/2005 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.