BOARD01477

• Board Meeting Date: 2/5/1969
• Description: Agenda or Table of Contents, Minutes, Memos
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Meeting

Be that as it may, I think this bill is
certainly a workable thing and certainly I'll
vote for it. I think we need to go from there.
I do want to make two or three suggestions.
I don't hold forth that these have to happen
as far as I am concerned. I have studied
this bill a little bit and I have just a
suggestion or two that I hope would be embodied
somewhere down the line.

I

The commission approach in my thinking
is absolutely sound, no question about it.
I think that it is the only way to work out
these river basin problems, commissions in
the river basins. My only concern is how we
make up these commissions. That's the key
to the problem. As I read the bill, I think
we will probably somewhere have to decide in
more realistic terms who is going to be a com-
missioner. It says here:

'Members appointed to water rights com-
missions shall possess such traini,ng: .and
experience as to qualify them to render expert
opinions and decisions on, the complex matters
otwater rights and administration.'

That covers a lot of qualifications in
my book. I don't like.the word 'expert'.
I don't think it's necessary nor'do I think
it is right to limit the commission members
to.that kind of a description. I don't think
we want a commission, whether it's three or
five, dominated by experts. I recognize that
we probably need some legal advice and some
legal help on these commissions. I hope you
lawyers won't take offense, but I think we
should limit this thing in some way. My
suggestion would be that we write in the law
that on any commission the number of lawyers
shall not exceed one. I think we'll need some
engineering advice probably if we can get it
and then I am absolutely sure that we need at
least one man on a commission that has some
down-to-earth experience on diversion and use

I