Mountain Buzz banner

1 - 1 of 1 Posts

39 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
:!: To everyone interested in the RICD issue, This was sent to me by a friend of mine thought it would hlep to get it out there.
Thanks JB

I received a call from a House Representative last night that had concerns about the amendments that had been made to Senate Bill 06-037 concerning RICD's. Apparently Senator Isgar had amended a bill that was a carefully balanced compromise to the extent that the bill no longer addressed the concerns of majority leaders. It was suggested that if the legislation went before the House a vote would be split along party lines with representatives in large municipalities favoring the new bill. The representative thought that a show of support from smaller, more rural, regions could help prevent the passage of the amended bill, opening the subject for further debate. A vote may occur within the next week to week and a half. Letters to the House Ag Committee were encouraged, as well as to representatives Hodge, Salano, and White (who may be a swing vote).

I know that Durango intends to file before the new bill would be instituted, however effective RICD's should be considered a statewide privilege/ issue. Of particular concern is the inclusion of the term "minimum" when defining RICDs, a word that the committee had apparently worked hard to remove.

I mentioned to the representative my concerns about the 90% clause. I was told that the clause was a compromise, designed to encourage applicants to apply for reasonable amounts of water. It was determined that this would replace defined maximum requests. Apparently the concept of percent of flow could not be agreed upon.

In any event, I have attached a copy of the amended bill. The link to the draft bill is

Please consider writing to the House Ag Committee. A show of force from the Durango area, as well as any other rural municipality you may have contacts in, could help prevent the passage of a bill that would diminish the role of future RICD's.

1 - 1 of 1 Posts