My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD00725
CWCB
>
Chatfield Mitigation
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
1-1000
>
BOARD00725
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 2:53:33 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 6:43:23 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
1/18/1973
Description
Agenda or Table of Contents, Minutes, Memos
Board Meetings - Doc Type
Meeting
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
75
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />does become a part of the next ballot, it will be laid right here in <br />these meetings. I think it is incumbent upon the people to express <br />themselves and that the drafters and those who have suggested the <br />amendment to make it perfectly clear in the record what those amend- <br />ments mean and why they are inserted and hopefully what the purpose <br />is so that it will be some guide to the judicial interpretation of it <br />in the future. <br /> <br />~~. Sparks: This proposed amendment would permit the legislature to <br />establish minimum stream flows. The constitution in effect encourages <br />a complete destruction of streams and natural lakes because it says <br />you have to divert the ~~ter to put it to beneficial use. There <br />appears to be a considerable sentiment in Colorado that it is not <br />advisable to destroy all of our natural streams and lakes. The <br />Governor is firmly convinced that this is a prevalent opinion in Colo- <br />rado and in his message to the legislature he requested that the <br />legislature adopt a constitutional amendment along the lines of the <br />one proposed here. No constitutional amendment can change what has <br />already been done, but this amendment provides that after its enactment <br />the.legislature shall establish minimum stream flows. It means that <br />the legislature will have to determine how this is to be done. Undoub~- <br />edly, this will t~ce a period of some years to determine what adequate <br />stream flows or what minimum stream flows should be maintained. If <br />we are interested in environmental protection of the waters of the <br />state, there is no other way that it can be done in my opinion than <br />by constitutional amendment. This would not change or infringe upon <br />any existing right because the constitutional amendment reads: "rights <br />initiated hereafter". <br /> <br />While this will be a controversial amendment, already I have heard <br />interpretations about this that I never dreamed of. But they are <br />being made. Another draft is being circulated which would allow any- <br />one to appropriate flowing water in the streams in place. To me, <br />that \rould create absolute and utter pandemonium. The thing to <br />remember is that the people of this state are serious about doing some- <br />thing to protect their lakes and streams. Unless the legislature <br />does something, there will probably be some initiated amendment. <br /> <br />Mr. Stapleton: Well, Larry, for some of the non-lawyers here, why <br />don't you explain what you meant by the words "initiated hereafter" <br />so that we will get that qualified. <br /> <br />Mr. Sparks: Under the existing law, certain rights have already been <br />granted. So what we are referring to is any rights which are initiated <br /> <br />-20- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.