Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />there were people who thought that these were too low and this is the <br />outcome of that determination. <br /> <br />Mr. Sparks: As I have pointed out. the operating principles only specify <br />a point release. There is nothing to keep someone from picking up that <br />water immediately below that point. The operating principles can in <br />effect be destroyed by appropriations made below the release points. We <br />think this recommendation then protects the operating principles and <br />carries out what they intended to do. <br /> <br />l~. Kroeqer: There is one thing though that I would like to ask. Under <br />this bill. we were going to sample this legislation and go through the <br />courts with it and find out whether we have something or whether we have <br />to go the constitutional amendment route. While I understand why we <br />took this one. and I am in agreement with it. it doesn't appear that we <br />are going to create any controversy and we are not going to learn any- <br />thing particularly from it. <br /> <br />Mr. Moses: I would like to respond to that. This is not a very good <br />framework for that kind of a test case. It was my understanding at the <br />time of the discussion about whether you go the statutory or the amend- <br />ment way. that some of the people who felt that one way or the other <br />were prepared to get a real good guinea pig case. This is not it and <br />that doesn't prevent somebody'from getting a case that they think would <br />be a good test case and proceeding with it. <br /> <br />Mr. Ten Evck: I hope we do get a good test case. I have to believe we <br />have to get the constitutional amendment. <br /> <br />Mr. Sparks: I have grave doubts too about the constitutionality of this <br />act. but anyway we have to proceed on the assumption that it is consti- <br />tutional. And if it turns out it is not, we haven't entirely wasted <br />all this time and effort. What we have done is wasted a priority date. <br />The work that we do in connection with this will be equally applicable <br />to any constitutional amendment. The classification of the streams <br />would have to take place in any event regardless of the type of law. I <br />don't know how we are going to get this tested either. but there will <br />come a test one of these days. <br /> <br />Mr. Berthelson: <br />the Eagle River? <br /> <br />Why don't we test minimum stream flows on the head of <br />That will probably test it. <br /> <br />Mr. Sparks: We have that as a high priority item. <br /> <br />-51- <br />