As written the bill is confusing and may have significant unintended consequences dealing with the definition of navigable rivers and the amount of "rent" that can be charged farmers/ranchers for irrigation systems in rivers. Pending clarification, recommend no position for MC at this time.
Pat O'Herren writes: While the bill may potentially benefit the agricultural community, it is plagued with two serious problems: 1) The definition of a "navigable river" has been changed in a detrimental manner (DNRC is likely to propose an amendment that would remedy this problem); and 2) It appears that the bill may exempt potentially significant projects from MEPA.
Suggest oppose as written but support amendments that remedy the two problems noted above
As written the bill is confusing and may have significant unintended consequences dealing with the definition of navigable rivers and the amount of "rent" that can be charged farmers/ranchers for irrigation systems in rivers. Pending clarification, recommend no position for MC at this time.
ReplyDeletePat O'Herren writes: watch
ReplyDeletePat O'Herren writes: While the bill may potentially benefit the agricultural community, it is plagued with two serious problems: 1) The definition of a "navigable river" has been changed in a detrimental manner (DNRC is likely to propose an amendment that would remedy this problem); and 2) It appears that the bill may exempt potentially significant projects from MEPA.
ReplyDeleteSuggest oppose as written but support amendments that remedy the two problems noted above