Case No. 02SA226 Affidavit of Dawn M. Heher October 2002

Home Browse Search

Rep. Plant (pages 12 and 13): "I personally think that the side that is bringing this challenge in the water court over Golden's ability to divert the amount of water they want to divert for their recreational instream flows and to me I think their going to be victorious. I think they have a very good case as to why that level of water diversion should not be granted and the Water Courts are considering that right now and they are going to come down with their decision. And as Rep. Spradley just said this Bill isn't going to affect that one bit, because they are grandfathered in. But what that will do is set case law, it will set a historical judicial precedent for further challenges and I believe will make this Bill completely unnecessary and as Representative Madden so eloquently pointed out, this Bill has some constitutional questions and its not even needed... . And if it's not needed we don't need to be changing the water law. I think this is an entirely unnecessary piece of legislation. I think the courts are doing there job right now. We're going to wait were gonna find out what they decided and I would urge a NO vote on this bill." Rep. Plant (page 13): "Representative Spradley is right we set the law, we set the policy and then what happens next? The courts interpret it, the courts come down with a decision. But what we're doing here, is that we're changing the policy before the courts even come down with a decision. Before the courts even interpreted our law. And I think were going to, I think that we have standing to win this case and I think that its going to. We're going to set the judicial standing, but what were going to do instead, is instead of letting the courts interpret our law and come up with there interpretation of our laws, we are going to run out and change it again. You know, what's the point, why are we dong this? I urge a NO vote."