Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br /> <br />Mr. Sparks: Yes, they will agree to it. <br /> <br />Mr. Burr: Larry, you know, I have always been against it since 1973, <br />and I challenge the right of this Board that it gets from the legisla- <br />ture. Some of the attorneys think it is unconstitutional, and it has <br />not been found constitutional by the Supreme Court as yet, and I am <br />one of them, and say it is unconstitutional, and therefore I cannot <br />vote for this right. I say that I am just like the Indian, when he said <br />that when he plants corn, up comes corn, when he plants an Indian, uv <br />comes a Chinaman -- that is what we are getting. That is what I don t <br />like about it, because I think that if you want to change your diversion <br />or, and all, if we don't watch ourselves, we are going to come up -- <br />we still have a decree, but the 1975 decree. If the Fish and Game come <br />up with the same thing we do when we go in for a 1975 decree, why I am <br />for that. I am for this minimum flow, but if they come up with a <br />better decree that we do, I don't think it is right. <br /> <br />Mr. Sparks: I canlt quite follow the line of thought that they come up <br />with a better decree. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Mr. Burr: They can cut off -- if you wanted to change the point of <br />diversion or you wanted to exchange the decree, they can come in and <br />you can contest that, and they can get their decree ahead of it. <br /> <br />Mr. Sparks: Clarence, let me point out that there is no law that gives <br />this Board any greater authority to protest a change of point of diver- <br />sion than is given to every water user in the state. This law is in <br />perfect harmony with the other laws of this state. Any junior appro- <br />priator, whether it is the state or an individual, can protest any <br />change of point of diversion, if he is injured. We have no greater <br />remedy than every other water user in the state. That has been the law <br />long before this act was ever passed. <br /> <br />Mr. Burr: That is what these Fish and Game -- they have been working <br />for years and years to come in with a better water right than the <br />agricultural, and that is what they are doing. They are coming in with <br />a better water right than they went in with, they got the Water Board <br />working for them and the Attorney General's office fighting for them. <br />I don't know, every stream in the state and every tributary is going to <br />have a minimum flow, before you know it. <br /> <br />Mr. s!arks: That is true, because that is what the statute requires. <br />This oard expressed a great reservation about the constitutionality <br />of that law when it was first proposed. This Board recommended a <br />constitutional amendment. However, this Board is entirely a creation <br />of the state legislature. We do not have the authority to rule on the <br />constitutionality of laws. The legislature has directed this Board to <br />carry out a particular responsibility. I think that we have no choice <br />except to carry out that responsibility. Each member of this Board took <br />an oath to uphold the laws of the State of Colorado. This is one of <br />the duly enacted laws of this state. <br /> <br />Mr. Burr: If we vote for it, though, we are sanctioning that law, and <br /> <br />-7- <br />