Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />constitutional amendment. I was in total agreement with Larry on this. <br />lam convinced since the talk last night with these lawyers and they <br />are all very active in the water business, that we have a real good <br />chance, that we could do the thing by this sort of an amendment. <br />Some of the lawyers are here, Ken Broadhurst, Ken Balcomb, John Sayre, <br />and some of the others are not here who were present. But we felt <br />that maybe this was a better opportuni'cy than by going for a consti- <br />tutional amendment. At least we wanted to have this before you for <br />your consideration. <br /> <br />~~. Stapleton: Do you have a couple hundred Xeroxed copies of that? <br /> <br />Mr. Saunders: I have a Xeroxed copy in my hand and I can get another <br />one. <br /> <br />~~. Stapleton: I think that of a matter this important we ought to <br />have certainly more than an oral presentation of it. I don't know <br />how we can comment, but I will ask for a comment in a minute. As <br />revolutionary as that without having an opportunity to discuss it <br />more, I will ask Ken Balcomb if he has any comments on the proposal <br />that I have now seen for the first time and ~~. Sparks is now reading <br />for the first time. Perhaps you might like to try it. <br /> <br />11r. Balcomb: Assuming Ben, that you have a change of an agricultural <br />right, the court says under Larry's constitutional amendment, "All <br />right, you can only take 15 feet." How do you protect the other 10? <br />iVhat you get in the stream? It is there, how do you protect it? <br />You have to have it in somebody's name and we think it ought to be <br />the state. <br /> <br />~~. Sparks: That is correct. <br /> <br />Mr. Balcomb: Yes, we think this will do it. <br /> <br />Mr. Broadhurst: If I may say something too. I am Ken Broadhurst. <br />Another concern I have wi'ch the constitutional amendment was, suppose <br />you have a small stream that has 10 cfs in it for simple analogy, <br />suppose that the state set a minimum stream flow of 5 cfs, and suppose <br />there are two rights on that stream, a senior right for 5 and what <br />we consider a junior right for 5. The senior right is home free with <br />the proper limitations on transferring his right or changing his <br />point of use. What about the junior right, he stands the full brunt, <br />does he on all the streams then? I don't think that is being con- <br />sidered. When you look at the available supply and divide it up, <br /> <br />-30- <br />