HOw many people wrote/call legislation on SB 62?
1 - 20 of 47 Posts
I emailed my state senator. She sent back a non-form letter email in which she replied that she was voting against the bill. Cool.
As far as getting my dog to send an email, his paws are too big for my keyboard and his messages get a little confusing. Although he did send an email it looked like: "%gys SB-?m Food K&os Vote swim "{+< Woof tailwag +"virnomen*& noseprint &&Mmm" And if you've ever let your dog type, you know means: "Snacks, mmmm, water, mmmm, time for my nap."
As far as getting my dog to send an email, his paws are too big for my keyboard and his messages get a little confusing. Although he did send an email it looked like: "%gys SB-?m Food K&os Vote swim "{+< Woof tailwag +"virnomen*& noseprint &&Mmm" And if you've ever let your dog type, you know means: "Snacks, mmmm, water, mmmm, time for my nap."
Joined
·
805 Posts
I emailed all of them. Pagel, if this passes our little party may have to be put on hold (bastards). If not let's chat tonight about setting up the silent auction git down. I don't think a last minute call to your state senator this morning would hurt. I'm gonna give it a go right now.
EvanJ
EvanJ
Joined
·
89 Posts
Pagel-
You know all these dudes here at the shop have called Senator Johnson. If anyone hears the results, please post!
Peace Out,
You know all these dudes here at the shop have called Senator Johnson. If anyone hears the results, please post!
Peace Out,
You know, the urban senators will almost certainly vote against it anyway. It's the rural senators we need to put pressure on. The one's that are most liable to respond to public opinion are the ones that have much recreation opportunities in their districts.
Did the vote happen today? What happened?
Did the vote happen today? What happened?
the fight is not yet over ...
Sadly this did pass the senate so the fight is not yet over. We still need to continue to pursue this with our elected Representatives. Here's the report from Amy Livingston:
Thank you for all of your help in working to defeat SB 62 and unfortunately the fight is not yet over.
SB 62 (Limiting Recreational Water Use) is still alive as it passed on the Senate Floor with all Republicans and 2 Democrats (Isgar and Takis) supporting the bill.
Now SB 62 heads to the House and I will keep you updated on when the bill will be heard in Committee!
Please contact me with any questions!
Amy
Amy Livingston
Water Caucus Coordinator
Colorado Environmental Coalition
Sadly this did pass the senate so the fight is not yet over. We still need to continue to pursue this with our elected Representatives. Here's the report from Amy Livingston:
Thank you for all of your help in working to defeat SB 62 and unfortunately the fight is not yet over.
SB 62 (Limiting Recreational Water Use) is still alive as it passed on the Senate Floor with all Republicans and 2 Democrats (Isgar and Takis) supporting the bill.
Now SB 62 heads to the House and I will keep you updated on when the bill will be heard in Committee!
Please contact me with any questions!
Amy
Amy Livingston
Water Caucus Coordinator
Colorado Environmental Coalition
The bill barely passed the senate. The senate makeup favors the rural communities, so they will prefer purely agricultural use of water.
The representatives will have less agricultural votes, so we have a good chance of defeating it there. We need to make our voices heard. I hope the fishermen are expressing their views too.
The representatives will have less agricultural votes, so we have a good chance of defeating it there. We need to make our voices heard. I hope the fishermen are expressing their views too.
Joined
·
331 Posts
It is impossible to find any info about this from the newspapers and tv stations. Anyone know anyone in these places? Seems when they passed the bill to allow recreational flows, it was big news, now this is gonna squeak through without any media attention. 
Joined
·
89 Posts
It's really on now!!!!
Terrible news on this bill passing. While we could get down on the bs a lot of us feel oftentimes toward this process, it is time to really attack. We cannot allow this bill to pass the house.
If you or your family has a job tied to summer tourism in this state or any other (this could set precedence), it is time to fight. If you want water in your rivers for after work floats or weekend trips or sessions at your local park, it is time to fight. We CANNOT allow this bill to pass the house. I know that if everybody reading these messages takes one hour per week to dedicate time here, we can make a huge difference. Write a letter to the editor or publish an op-ed in your local paper. Call local TV news stations. Talk to your local city councils and county commissioners about the money they stand to lose if the house version of SB62 passes. Not only do boaters lose here. Fishermen and women, swimmers and tubers, conservationists and naturalists, community economies-we all stand to lose.
I for one am tired of being bullied by these folks. I am sick of short-sighted extraction-driven legislators messing with our resources. These folks should be protecting flows, not endangering them. If it's not recreational flows, it's private property issues. These people seem to be unhappy until they put a stop to recreational uses on our public waterways.
Sorry for the rant, but I am tired of our future being decided in legislature without involvement of the entire boating community. I know I have been laissez about issues in the past, but this is a problem we all must face together. What Amy, Mike, and everybody that has been working to stop SB62 has done is awesome and very appreciated by all of us.
However, it is time now for all boaters to join up and fight this legislation. If we don't now, we may lose our water forever.
Again, sorry for ranting.
Terrible news on this bill passing. While we could get down on the bs a lot of us feel oftentimes toward this process, it is time to really attack. We cannot allow this bill to pass the house.
If you or your family has a job tied to summer tourism in this state or any other (this could set precedence), it is time to fight. If you want water in your rivers for after work floats or weekend trips or sessions at your local park, it is time to fight. We CANNOT allow this bill to pass the house. I know that if everybody reading these messages takes one hour per week to dedicate time here, we can make a huge difference. Write a letter to the editor or publish an op-ed in your local paper. Call local TV news stations. Talk to your local city councils and county commissioners about the money they stand to lose if the house version of SB62 passes. Not only do boaters lose here. Fishermen and women, swimmers and tubers, conservationists and naturalists, community economies-we all stand to lose.
I for one am tired of being bullied by these folks. I am sick of short-sighted extraction-driven legislators messing with our resources. These folks should be protecting flows, not endangering them. If it's not recreational flows, it's private property issues. These people seem to be unhappy until they put a stop to recreational uses on our public waterways.
Sorry for the rant, but I am tired of our future being decided in legislature without involvement of the entire boating community. I know I have been laissez about issues in the past, but this is a problem we all must face together. What Amy, Mike, and everybody that has been working to stop SB62 has done is awesome and very appreciated by all of us.
However, it is time now for all boaters to join up and fight this legislation. If we don't now, we may lose our water forever.
Again, sorry for ranting.
All along the reports were that this is a bad bill and that it would not pass committee or if it did that it would not pass the senate. Both of these things happened which implies that it could also pass the House regardless of the geographic distribution of Representatives.
It is time to make sure all of our Representatives know where we, their constituents, stand on this issue. As of this morning, this thread has been viewed 263 times on MountainBuzz. If most of those viewers can write a letter or make a phone call we can have an impact!
Here's a link to the text of SB 62:
http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics200...07CBA587256F5D00809BA7?open&file=062ag_01.pdf
If you do talk with or email your Representatives here is some sample text you might use to model your discussion:
Hi (Representative/Senator/Councilman ...) ______, my name is ______ and I am one of your constituents. I am calling to ask you to oppose Senate Bill 62 which limits our recreational water use.
Water-based recreation and tourism contribute significantly to Colorado's economy and quality of life. Unfortunately this bill is a one-size fits all approach which does not help Colorado, our rivers or our local economies.
With the increasing popularity of recreational activities such as kayaking, rafting and tubing, today recreational water rights are a very important
component of Colorado's water law. Please vote NO on Senate Bill 62 and thank you for your time.
It is time to make sure all of our Representatives know where we, their constituents, stand on this issue. As of this morning, this thread has been viewed 263 times on MountainBuzz. If most of those viewers can write a letter or make a phone call we can have an impact!
Here's a link to the text of SB 62:
http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics200...07CBA587256F5D00809BA7?open&file=062ag_01.pdf
If you do talk with or email your Representatives here is some sample text you might use to model your discussion:
Hi (Representative/Senator/Councilman ...) ______, my name is ______ and I am one of your constituents. I am calling to ask you to oppose Senate Bill 62 which limits our recreational water use.
Water-based recreation and tourism contribute significantly to Colorado's economy and quality of life. Unfortunately this bill is a one-size fits all approach which does not help Colorado, our rivers or our local economies.
With the increasing popularity of recreational activities such as kayaking, rafting and tubing, today recreational water rights are a very important
component of Colorado's water law. Please vote NO on Senate Bill 62 and thank you for your time.
I sent a letter to Ron Tupa, And this was his response. i guess we needed to get to the people who voted for it!!
Dear Friend,
Thank you for your letter asking me to oppose SB-62,
the legislation which would add additional
requirements for consideration before a stream could
be diverted for recreational use.
I voted to oppose SB-62 during the senate
deliberations for all of the reasons you mentioned. If
passed, it would hamper outdoor recreational
activities, discourage tourism, and hurt small
businesses that relay on outdoor water sports.
Colorado needs all of the revenue that tourism
provides so passing this legislation would only hinder
our sluggish economy.
Moreover, SB-62 seeks to supersede a pending decision
before the Colorado Supreme Court. The court is
currently reviewing legislation (which I voted for)
that passed in 2001, SB-216, which allows for
in-channel water use. The court is also looking at
what is a beneficial amount of water that should be
used for these types of recreation. I think it would
be wrong to pass a law without waiting for the court?s
ruling on this issue.
I am in agreement with the League of Women Voters and
the Colorado Environmental Coalition, both of which
are opposed to the bill.
Thanks again for taking the time to express your
opinion on this issue. I sincerely value the views of
my constituents. If you would like to receive my
legislative newsletter please sing-up at
www.rontupa.com or send an email to
[email protected].
Sincerely,
Senator Tupa
State Senator
Dear Friend,
Thank you for your letter asking me to oppose SB-62,
the legislation which would add additional
requirements for consideration before a stream could
be diverted for recreational use.
I voted to oppose SB-62 during the senate
deliberations for all of the reasons you mentioned. If
passed, it would hamper outdoor recreational
activities, discourage tourism, and hurt small
businesses that relay on outdoor water sports.
Colorado needs all of the revenue that tourism
provides so passing this legislation would only hinder
our sluggish economy.
Moreover, SB-62 seeks to supersede a pending decision
before the Colorado Supreme Court. The court is
currently reviewing legislation (which I voted for)
that passed in 2001, SB-216, which allows for
in-channel water use. The court is also looking at
what is a beneficial amount of water that should be
used for these types of recreation. I think it would
be wrong to pass a law without waiting for the court?s
ruling on this issue.
I am in agreement with the League of Women Voters and
the Colorado Environmental Coalition, both of which
are opposed to the bill.
Thanks again for taking the time to express your
opinion on this issue. I sincerely value the views of
my constituents. If you would like to receive my
legislative newsletter please sing-up at
www.rontupa.com or send an email to
[email protected].
Sincerely,
Senator Tupa
State Senator
1 - 20 of 47 Posts
Join the discussion
Join now to ask and comment!