Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />ilr. Stapleton: All right:, is there anymore? <br /> <br />i1r. Scott: Sorry to disrupt the meeting, but I had to stand up and <br />defend myself after the vicious attack by Mr. Saunders. I believe <br />that Mr. Sparks is quite right about the inevitable constitutional <br />arguments that are going to come out of statutory changes and the <br />difficulty of surmo.unting them. The Holland and Hart report at least <br />indirectly recommended to proceed with both routes at the same time. <br />That way J1r. Saunders' ideas about getting a speedier reaction to the <br />definition of beneficial use and diversion will happen an~~ay, but <br />at the same time you have the constitutional amendment being worked <br />on and you are not '~aiting to, 3S ~tr. Sparks said would be the case, <br />be letting it go beyond nine months or until next year. So it would <br />seem to me that if the whole thing is worth doing which everybody <br />finally seems to agree it is, it begs the question to argue about <br />which method is the best method because no one really knows that any- <br />way. We all know what we are shooting for basically. I think the <br />two are compatible and that is what the Holland and Hart report said. <br />In a way, you almost have to amend the state statutory definitions <br />and some of the guidelines that have to do with what can be considered <br />in water proceedings, change cases or new appropriations, anyway, so <br />why not just do it right now? That would be the position that I would <br />ask the board to consider, do and take on this debate over -the amend- <br />ments. <br /> <br />J1r. Berthelson: itr. Chairman. <br /> <br />11r. Stapleton: Yes, Itr. Berthelson. <br /> <br />i,tr. Berthelson: The lawyers have got me confused. When I came to <br />this meeting I was pretty much in favor of -this amendment and I still <br />think I am, believe it or not. <br /> <br />itr. Stapleton: It is a poor start, but go ahead. <br /> <br />i-tr. Berthelson: 1'1hether you want to .try to make a decision on it today <br />is questionable. I am inclined to think that maybe we should take a <br />little more time and perhaps have another meeting and discuss the <br />National Water Commission and other things here in another couple of <br />weeks. This thing, changing the constitution doesn't scare me too <br />much. If the thing is passed, then it is still a legislative matter <br />as to what streams are change~ and what areas and so forth. I think <br />it will be kicked around a good deal before there is any substantial <br />change made in any stream in the state of Colorado. At least, I would <br /> <br />-44- <br />