Laserfiche WebLink
<br />So itr. Chairman. just the last thing I would like to say as a personal <br />observation would be that to the best of my understanding I support <br />~~. Sparks in that it would be mo~e positive and more meaningful to <br />pursue both of these measures. It still is a good idea to go ahead <br />with both. I don't think there is any legal or logical inconsistency <br />in that even though it is clear that you could be faced with that <br />point of argument. I c.hink we are missing our chance to do the job <br />right now because there is quite a bit, of interest and support. public <br />and otherwise. for clearing up this matter of beneificial use. It <br />would be a mistake to drop it and just plain forget about the consti- <br />tutional amendment. I am pretty sure that Mike Strang. the prime <br />sponsor of HeR 1004. feels the same way. At least, intuitively he <br />feels that way at this point. He is looking for the direction of this <br />board. <br /> <br />Thank you for letting me express those comments. <br /> <br />Mr. Stapleton: Thank you. We appreciate them. Any questions? How <br />about some other members of the ad hoc committee? Well now Larry. <br />can you bring us up to date? There are somewhat divergent views <br />from members of the ad hoc committee and your own. <br /> <br />Mr. Sparks: I think that everyone on the ad hoc committee is trying <br />to accomplish the same purpose. I see nothing wrong in proceeding <br />with the statutory approach as outlined in Senate Bill No. 97. How- <br />ever. I still feel that it is putting the cart before the horse. <br />Nevertheless. that has been done before with some success. In the <br />event that a constitutional amendment is adopted along the lines of <br />what has been proposed, statutory language would be necessary in any <br />event to implement the constitutional provisions. The constitution <br />really does nothing in itself. It is up to the legislature then to <br />enact laws to carry out what the constitution says. <br /> <br />We have had some experience in this state in establishing minimum <br />stream flows. This has been done on 'the Colorado-Big Thompson project. <br />It took a good many years. It was done for the Fryingpan-Arkansas <br />project. We have a continuing committee on the Fryingpan-Arkansas <br />project reviewing stream flows and all the operating principles for <br />the project. <br /> <br />I do not believe that it is possible to get a case before the Supreme <br />Court on the statutory language before the legislature convenes next <br />January. The reason I make that statement is in the first place it <br />will require a considerable amount of time simply to make studies to <br /> <br />-IO- <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br />