Laserfiche WebLink
Rep. Spradley: Thank you. And I think maybe we're getting confused between a <br /> conditional water right and a recreational water right. The courts <br /> have made a decision about the recreational water rights and so what <br /> we're trying to do is set forth the framework and the process to deal <br /> with a recreational water right which the court has set. The <br /> conditional water rights are also a legitimate matter, but whether or <br /> not they can be converted to a recreational water right, the court has <br /> not [unintelligible]. And we're setting forth what we believe is the <br /> appropriate way to deal with that issue. And so we would be giving <br /> direction to the court as to how we believe that that should proceed <br /> or not proceed as far as conversion of a conditional water right or <br /> recreational water right. I don't know if that helps or muddies the <br /> waters. <br /> Mme. Chair: Mr. Kuharich? <br /> Rod Kuharich: Representative Plant, the legislature did exactly what we are <br /> proposing when they created the CWCB in -stream flow right. They <br /> specifically prohibited the Water Conservation Board from accepting <br /> the conditional water rights and turning them into very senior in- <br /> stream flow rights. And they recognized the character of an in- <br /> stream flow right or an in-stream flow diversion at that time and <br /> were simply carrying this forward. We are currently prohibited by <br /> statutes from doing that for our environmental in -stream flows. <br /> Mme. Chair: Representative Plant? <br /> Rep. Plant: [unintelligible] [crosstalk] And I think there is some, as you said, <br /> some question, but it seems that the courts historically, and maybe, <br /> Steve, when he gets .up. here [unintelligible], but they said that under <br /> [unintelligible] versus Christiansen [sp] that application for a <br /> conditional water right involves a water matter over which there is <br /> jurisdiction in the courts. They said that water matters include <br /> application for a change in water right. And so it seems that if we're <br /> going down the line here, the conditional water right is a water <br /> matter over which the court has the jurisdiction and the changing in <br /> the water right constitutes something over which the court has a <br /> jurisdiction that — to specifically put into statutes that no decree shall <br /> be entered adjudicating a change of conditional water right <br /> [unintelligible] going directly counter to that. <br /> Mme. Chair: Representative Spradley? <br /> Rep. Spradley: Thank you. I think what we're having is a fundamental discussion <br /> about separation of power. And that is should the legislature be <br /> setting forth the law in the courts and interpreting it and doing that. <br /> May 7, 2001 <br /> Page 10 <br />