Laserfiche WebLink
Rep. Spradley: Thank you. Representative Johnson, I think your question probably <br /> went beyond the scope of this bill. [unintelligible] you're saying are <br /> there other things out there that as a legislative body we should be <br /> looking at to say do we want to avoid the courts making a decision <br /> and then us having to come back in kind of after the fact and do that. <br /> And I think it's a very good question. I don't know that it's a — you <br /> know, that it deals with this bill, but I think your question is <br /> appropriate. <br /> Mme. Chair: Representative Johnson? <br /> Rep. Johnson: Thank you, Madam Chair. Can we prohibit this as a beneficial use? <br /> Can we statutorily say that a recreational use is not beneficial use? <br /> Mme. Chair: Representative Spradley? <br /> Rep. Johnson: I know we can't affect what's already in the pipeline, but... <br /> Rep. Spradley: Thank you, Madam Chairman. Representative Johnson, I think the . <br /> hole is already in the dyke on this issue, if I use a water metaphor <br /> here. And I think we probably are — you know, where we are is <br /> where we are. And so we probably need to go forward and make <br /> sure that the legislature has some voice in what the process is going <br /> forward. But I think your earlier -- which goes back to your earlier <br /> question and that is should at some point in the process we be <br /> requesting either the CWCB or the Department of Natural Resources <br /> to, you know, [unintelligible] to look at our current water law and <br /> say is there something else out there that we probably ought to be <br /> looking at so that we're not swimming upstream. <br /> Mme. Chair: I share the same concern that Representative Johnson has. I think <br /> that it's this body's obligation to pass the statutes for the courts to <br /> follow and interpret and not the other way around. And we're doing <br /> it opposite here and that's a problem I have with this, too. But I also <br /> realize that the hole has been in the dyke for quite a while and the <br /> legislature didn't act for a long time. Representative Spradley? <br /> Rep. Spradley: Yes. I do think that, you know, we should request the department to <br /> look at this issue and — because I do think that Representative <br /> Johnson's statements are exactly on target. Because what's <br /> happening now is we're basically codifying what the courts have <br /> done so that we have it all in one place so that we have that decision <br /> in statute, and so we have — and we have the CWCB clearly <br /> identified in their position in that because that's the matter of course <br /> of these things. And so I think — I'm being redundant a little bit, but <br /> I don't think so. <br /> May 7, 2001 <br /> Page 7 <br />