Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />determifie what the m~n~mum stream flows should be in any given area. <br />:ie are talking about at least a five to ten-year job. We could <br />select one stream and get some studies done by perhaps late this <br />summer. Based upon those studies. we would have to go into the water <br />court and then get a decree. I think we will be in the water court <br />at least until sometime next year. To get a legitimate controversy <br />before the supreme Court before next January in my opinion is abso- <br />lutely out of the question. I think we are talking about a three to <br />four-year program before we ever get a decision out of the Supreme <br />Court with reference to this statute. It would be a considerable <br />deception to the prople of this state to postpone the matter of a <br />constitutional amendment. The Governor has strongly recommended a <br />constitutional amendment. I believe that this is a matter of major <br />state policy which should be submitted to the electorate. If they <br />don't approve. we can forget about the matter. If they do. then we <br />can move ahead. We would hope with the combined efforts of the federal <br />government and our division of wildlife that we could achieve stream <br />classifications in a reasonable time. ,Ie are talking about in any <br />event some five to ten years. <br /> <br />I have the feeling that the only wise course to pursue at this time <br />is to endorse the Governor's position on the constitutional amendment. <br />Tam has mentioned that the constitutional amendment has been introduced <br />into the House as House Concurrent Resolution 1004. No action has yet <br />been taken on it by the Natural Resources Committee of the House. <br />Senate Bill No. 97 is coming up before the Senate Committee this <br />afternoon. Along with what Tam has said. I believe that it will be <br />difficult to define "diversion" as being a "nondiversion". I don't <br />know how you can do that. to say that divert doesn't mean divert. I <br />agree with what Tam has said that the best thing to do is in the <br />pending Bill No. 97 to eliminate the definition of "diversion" that <br />is now contained in the statute. It wasn't necessary in the first <br />place. This would mean then to eliminate lines 7 to lIon the printed <br />bill. Then on line 15 where the word "diversion" is used. change <br />that word to "appropriation". On line 19. after the word "appro- <br />priation". put the words "or acquisition". So it ,would read to include <br />"the appropriation or acquisition by the state of Colorado". <br /> <br />~tr. Stapleton: Eminent domain is not an acquisition? <br /> <br />Hr. Sparks: Eminent domain would not be included. This <br />authority of eminent domain only in one case. That's to <br />necessary for part of a federal flood control project. <br />solo power today as far as eminent domain is concerned. <br /> <br />board has the <br />secure lands <br />That's our <br />The words <br /> <br />-11- <br />