Laserfiche WebLink
<br />after the adoption of this constitutional amendment. It's really not <br />going to apply with any great force to the appropriation of water <br />because we have already appropriated all the water we have. and then <br />some. It will apply primarily to changes in points of diversion and I <br />changes in use which might occur after the adoption of this consti- <br />tutional amendment. if adopted. What we are really talking about is <br />putting some limitation on future changes in points of diversion. <br />That is the primary thrust of the amendment. <br /> <br />Mr. Stapleton: Now, if I had filed a petition for a change in point <br />of diversion with the court that hadn't been acted upon by the time <br />this became a part of the constitution. would I have initiated it? <br /> <br />Mr. Sparks: Yes. <br /> <br />i1r. Stapleton: Anything less than filing the petition would be <br />satisfactory? <br /> <br />Mr. Sparks: I would say not. <br /> <br />Mr. Stapleton: Well. that means that we might have a great many <br />filings just the day before it became effective. and so forth. We <br />could contemplate something like that. <br /> <br />Mr. Sparks: Yes. This has been the normal course of human activities. <br /> <br />toc. Stapleton: Well now. suppose the legislature has determined a <br />minimum stream flow for a stream and then they went home and they got <br />a lot of pressure. So it is all right if they raise it. but if they <br />lower it. there is a possibility of change all the time. isn't there? <br />'<'How does this amendment affect that? You get a vested right on the <br />basis of the then interpretation of then statute about the minimum <br />stream flow. Don't you have a "grandfather clause" that they change <br />it the next year? <br /> <br />Mr. Sparks: I don't think that it is likely that changes will be made <br />after minimum flows are established. I doubt that they are going to <br />be changed unless the facts upon which they were established to begin I <br />with were proved to be wrong. The courts will determine what is <br />reasonable and what is unreasonable. That should be the sole purpose <br />and function of the courts in this type of action. but I doubt that <br />after minimum flows are established there will be any changes. This <br />has not been the history of minimum stream flows. These are not new. <br />We already have them here in Colorado. the Fry-Ark project. for instance. <br /> <br />-21- <br />