My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD02091
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
2001-3000
>
BOARD02091
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 3:11:37 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 7:09:55 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
3/16/1978
Description
Agenda, Minutes, Resolution
Board Meetings - Doc Type
Meeting
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
58
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />MR. SPARKS: I think that is an immaterial matter at this point, since <br />the Board will cover it at a later.time. What is material is as to <br />whether or not this board should continue with minimum streamflow <br />filings. <br /> <br />This whole subject has taken a.rather amusing twist. Let me recall a <br />little history of the minimum streamflow act;:whichwas passed in 1973. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />. - <br />This board originally pointed out to the'esteemed water lawyers in this <br />state very clearly that it was the-Board's opinion that we should seek <br />a constitutional amendment, rather than the, statutory law, in order <br />to accomplish. minimum streamflows.: That was.the position of this <br />board. 'The leading water attorneys of this state, including Mr. Balcomb, <br />Mr. Saunders, and others, came before this board and said:- "You're <br />wrong. The statute route is the way to go." <br /> <br />We had some doubt about the statutory route. But we, in effect, were <br />overruled by the Legislature and by the various water attorneys in this <br />state. We had no recourse except to go along with that. Had the <br />water attorneys not intervened, we probably:would have had a decision <br />of that matter at that time. I remember Mr. Saunders and others <br />getting up before the committees and saying: "Gentlemen, this is the <br />only way to go. If there is a question about the constitutionality, <br />we will get it decided within a year." <br /> <br />How well I remember' those remarks. <br /> <br />Now here"we are five years later,' and we'don.'t have a resolution of it <br />yet'. 'I don 't see how this board can fold up, when somebody brings a <br />lawsuit,. If we follow that procedure, - then we should rollover and <br />play dead for the Narrows Project' and others. There' is a suit against <br />that, too. There are suits, in effect, against all the Western Slope <br />projects on the salinity matter. We can't stop because somebody brings <br />a lawsuit. <br /> <br />I just wanted to clarify the history on this matter--that this,board <br />insisted upon a different procedure at the outset, but we were over- <br />ruled by Mr. Balcomb, Mr. Saunders, and a number of others that par- <br />ticipated in a number of conferences before the committees of the <br />House and Senate. <br /> <br />It is not a question'of additional expense. 'We are staffed up to do. <br />the 'job now and I don't intend to discharge staff members while we <br />await the results of protracted litigation. <br /> <br />MR. STAPLETON: I think that is enough of that, unless the bOard <br />members' feel otherwise~ We will go ahead, on the same basis we have <br />before; namely, that'wehave a statute' on the books and'we will carry <br />out Our responsibilities._ The attorneys can work on it~ I, very <br />frankly, might take another look at-it if we get an adverse district <br />court decision. But then you go to the Court of Appeals and then the <br />Supreme Court, perhaps, and we are light years away from a decision - <br />then. This agenda item will be continued. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />-14- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.