Laserfiche WebLink
<br />statutes. If the statutory method did prove to be feasible we would <br />have done a good job without the necessity for amending the consti- <br />tution at all. We felt very definitely at the conclusion of our <br />meeting that it would be \lorthWhile to make the statutory trial the <br />first endeavor. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />i>1r. 'Stapleton: Now would you identify for thEl records again the <br />members of this committee and who they rElpresElnt so far as you know. <br /> <br />Mr. Saunders: The meeting was called together rather hurriedly by <br />Robert Welborn who was the chiet draftsman of Senate Bill 81, and he <br />did this as a state employee, you will remember. There were a number <br />of lawyers there and there are enough here who can correct me if I <br />miss somebody. There were present: Ken Balcomb, Nonte Pascoe who <br />just came in. Ken Balcomb represents the Colorado River Water Con- <br />servation District, Monte Pascoe represents the Lower South Platte <br />Water Conservancy District, Charlie Beise who is the attorney for <br />the Southeastern Water conservancy District, and Bob Welborn. We <br />didn't know that Sam Maynes would be in town, or I guess he figured <br />we knew what Sam was going to say. We didn't forget him, but he <br />wasn't there. Ken Broadhurst, who is the chairman of the water section <br />of the Colorado Bar Association, and the attorney for the Denver Water <br />Department, and John Sayre, who was here this morning and will be <br />back as soon as he can, who represents the Northern Colorado Water <br />Conservancy District. Ben, you know who I represElnt, I have people <br />allover the state. <br /> <br />i>1r. Stapleton: I thought this \vas April Fool's Day: <br /> <br />Mr. Berthelson: He hit it pretty well when he made that last state- <br />ment. <br /> <br />Mr. Stapleton: The day Mr. Saunders develops his personality. . . <br />This committee was unanimous? <br /> <br />Hr. Saunders: Yes, the committee was unanimous. Although we started <br />out in disagreement, I was pretty much on Sparks' side that we had to <br />have a constitutional amendment. There were a couple of us that felt I <br />very strongly that way, but I think we all came around with the idea <br />that is was very much worthwhile to try this as a statutory propo- <br />'sition. Now Monte Pascoe, I don't think he has spoken on this, he <br />has come in now, he had substantial misgivings about the whole thing. <br />But still I think we all felt that we ought to take a try at the <br />statutory method as a first step in view of the fact that we can still <br /> <br />-41- <br />