9351 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Statements on House Floor, April 2, 1973, Third Reading of S.B. 97-(emphasis added). It might be argued that the General Assembly's authorization of the CWCB to appropriate minimum stream flows (1) is a violation of a non-Board Applicant's equal protection rights under the United States Constitution and (2) is special legislation under Article V, Section 25, of the Colorado Constitution. However, it is highly doubtful that such an argument would succeed. The Colorado Supreme Court has often stated the applicable rule of law regarding claims of equal protection and special legislation: Equal Protection in its guaranty of like treatment to all similarly situated permits classification which is reasonable and not arbitrary and which is based upon substantial differences having a reasonable relation to the objects or persons dealt with and to the public purpose sought to be achieved by the legislation involved. McCart v. Goldstein, 151 Colo. 154, 158, 376 P.2d 691, 693 (1962), quoting Champlin Refining Co. v. Cruse, 115 Colo. 329, 173 P.2d 213 (1946). The classification -- if it can be termed such -- between the CWCB and all other persons or entities is reasonable, not arbitrary, and has a rational relationship to the purpose sought to be served, i.e., the State's interest in preserving the environment. On several occasions the Colorado Supreme Court has recognized that the Legislature, through the minimum stream flow law, has determined how environmental concerns are to be integrated with the prior appropriation doctrine and that this is -11-