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 />~tr. Moses: Larry, I was curious as to why when you revised the section <br />you left out the domestic . . . <br /> <br />l.tr. Sparks: The old constitutional amendment which provides for pri- 1- <br />orities among users of domestic, agricultural and manufacturing, <br />doesn't mean anything in the first place, except that it gives a right <br />of condemnation. I personally have always objected to that preference <br />in the constitution. It doesn't mean anything, except for the con- <br />demnation authority. Cities and towns have condemnation authority <br />an~~ay. The courts have indicated that any individual could exercise <br />that right of condemnation. That some developer or subdivider, or <br />whatever, can condemn a farm and take water for his subdivision seems <br />objectionable to me. Condemnation authority should be exercised <br />most judiciously. It seems to me that appropriators should be on an <br />equal footing, that the only priorities should be based upon a pri- <br />ority date. <br /> <br />~tr. Moses: You think there is still adequate constitutional authority <br />for cities to condemn? <br /> <br />~tr. Sparks: There is no question about that, a city or any govern- <br />mental agency. If there is not, the legislature can grant it, but I <br />assume they have it now. The state does have that authority to <br />condemn water rights. It is a question of how the legislature dele- <br />gates that authority. I believe that it should be a legislative <br />matter, rather than frozen into the constitution. <br /> <br />11r. Stapleton: Tell us all about the timing in this. I take it it <br />wouldn't be until the election of 1974, is that correct? <br /> <br />Mr. Sparks: This is correct. <br /> <br />~tr. Stapleton: What are your thoughts in terms of this session of <br />the legislature circulating it? I am sure it has had wide circulation, <br />but I am not sure it has had wide enough circulation. Do you plan <br />to have this for this session of the legislature? <br /> <br />l-tr. Sparks: A House-Senate Concurrent Resolution has already been 1 <br />dropped into the hopper. The Governor specifically requested that <br />it be done at this session. I don't. know what will happen in the <br />legislature. It takes a two-thirds majority of both houses to adopt <br />a proposed constitutional amendment. I suspect the matter will be <br />hotly debated in the legislature and may not be passed. <br /> <br />-23- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.