Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />But I want to go back toa matter of principle~ I am not challenging <br />the instream flow thing at this,time. But the state of Colorado and <br />this board are in a rather novel position in the state of the law. ,They <br />are not appearing in the United states versus New Mexico, which very <br />well will raise hob with the adjudications going on with the federal <br />cases being prosecuted in Colorado today. They are not taking a posi- <br />tion in that case, the state; although elements of the state are taking <br />a position. They may lose all of the benefits out of what the Supreme <br />Court has said in three cases the state has been in in the Supreme <br />Court on. I just don't understand it. The Attorney General's office <br />is not representing the' state of Colorado in the Court of Appeals <br />regarding trespass to fish. The state has no position as related to <br />this minimum stream case. And I think we are in an odd circumstance as <br />a primary water policy body in the state of Colorado. <br /> <br />MR. ROBBINS: Mr. Chairman, may I respond to that, please? <br /> <br />MR. STAPLETON: -Yes. <br /> <br />MR. ROBBINS: I don't like to clutter up the record with charges and- <br />counter-charges, but, Mr. Balcomb, I resent. the distortion of what you <br />just said. <br /> <br />The Attorney General's office has not made a decision concerning the <br />New Mexiso case. For you to say that we are not representing the state <br />of Colorado is an outright lie. I have worked for two weeks on the New <br />Mexico case. I have before me right now a brief that has been proposed <br />for this state to join that I intend to present to this board today <br />during the Attorney's Report. And I want the record to reflect that the <br />Attorney General has made no decision because he has not consulted his <br />clients on this matter--whether the state of Colorado will join or will <br />not join. <br /> <br />MR. BALCOMB: I am glad I brought it out then, Mr. Robbins. <br /> <br />MR. ROBBINS: It would have been brought out in my report, without the <br />necessity of your implying to this board what my office is doing. <br /> <br />MR. BALCOMB: I only know what New Mexico said you said. Now that is <br />all I-know about it. <br /> <br />MR. ROBBINS: New Mexico stood up at the Western States Water Council <br />and said that the state of Colorado was going to take the lead in <br />writing the brief. As they had not even discussed it with me, I pointed <br />out to the state of New Mexico that I had some clients with varying <br />interests, some of them being the Division of Parks, the Division of <br />Wildlife, the Governor, the State Engineer, and the COlorado Water Con- <br />servation Board. I pointed out to the Council that it was presumptuous <br />for New Mexico to tell the other western states what we were or were' <br />not going to do. That is all I did.' <br /> <br />MR. HALCOMB: Dave, I have discussed with you in depth the real critical <br />question in the New Mexico case; that is, whether or not the allegations <br />of the Department of Justice are correct, that the united States cannot <br />get fair treatment in the state courts. <br /> <br />-13- <br />