2-07 House Committee Lay Over Unamended

Home Browse Search

2-07 House Committee Lay Over Unamended Page 23 of 49 Madam Chair: Rep. Brophy: Mr. Bany: We've sought for some time not to litigate these issues and not to make them worse by haranguing or overly aggressive tendencies. So I think the concept deserves a lot of attention. I support going forward with something like this, but there are some issues in here, both as to the legitimacy of how do you make an inter-basin compact figure binding on somebody who wasn't a party to it in the context of the prior appropriation doctrine. How do you tell somebody well, the Constitution says you can appropriate water, but this compact roundtable deal says you can't. We've got to resolve some major issues that way, but the concept of somehow the state endorsing and fostering this kind of negotiation, perhaps on a party by party basis with one objective being a cap on the transfer of water from one place to another is very valuable. I think at that I'm going to leave it. I like the concept. I'm just uncomfoliable with the very specific terms of the bill. Any questions from the committee? Representative Brophy. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Barry, I think you hit on something that's significant in this, of course, but I guess that - maybe the sponsor can comment on this, too. It seems like the legal stamp of approval that you get from states with regard to interstate compacts could be the equivalent then in this idea with the final step of it going through the General Assembly for approval. I'd just like your comment on that because I appreciate where you're going with this. I'd also like to hear what the sponsor has to say. If! may, Madam Chairman, I don't think any of this have thought this idea through enough so what you're getting from me is pretty raw and undigested opinion. I think it could be sanctified by the General Assembly, although you all are more familiar with this than I am. Do you think a roundtable arrangement would come to the General Assembly and never get changed? Seems to me the opportunity for the General Assembly to medal with it or for some people to advocate that you've medaled with it is significant. That's point one. Point two is even if that's done there is a superseding Constitutional problem about the availability of water under the prior appropriation doctrine. You could say as a matter of law that www.escriptionist.com Page 23 of 49