Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Mr. Geissinqer: Larry. this bill. as drafted. goes beyond changing <br />points of diversion. It covers the whole thing. <br /> <br />Mr. Sparks: It was awkward to try to amend the way the present statute <br />is written. <br /> <br />Mr. Geissinqer: I think if you are going to get in for one purpose <br />you ought to be in for all of them. In the 1969 act we had a provi- <br />sion in there to the effect that the division engineer was supposed <br />to appear in all these proceedings to furnish pertinent information. <br />and to be represented by the Attorney General upon request. I think <br />most of us had in mind that he wa,s just appearing as a witness. expert <br />witness. for this pertinent information. But strangely enough. the <br />Supreme Court of Colorado when it revised its rules of appellate <br />procedure, which became effective in April of 1970. the year following <br />the pass~ge of the 1969 act, inserted a rather odd provision that the <br />division engineer, if he was not an appellant in the case should be <br />made an appellee. In other words, that would more or less treat him <br />as being a party. It isn't clear yet. but we have had this experience <br />with the court to date. In most instances we felt that there were <br />sufficient adverse parties in the cases so that the case would be <br />brief for the Supreme Court. As a matter of course and on the theory <br />that we were not a party in the sense of anything other than appearing <br />as a witncs~. we asked for dismissals in a number of cases that had <br />been filed there on appeal and it has been granted in all instances <br />but one. In that case. there were no objections. no protests, to an <br />application for determination of a water right. The right was denied <br />and it was appealed and they made the division engineer an appellee <br />in accordance with the court rules and we asked for a dismissal <br />because we hadn't participated in the case. but we were denied the <br />right not to appear. <br /> <br />So apparently somehody feels that we are already in there through the <br />division engineer. but certainly if it is the desire of the Governor <br />and particularly in view of these changes that we have been talking <br />about. constitutional amendments and so forth; I think it is wise to <br />get some legislative clarification on it. And I can't see any dif- <br />ferencebetween a change of point of diversion and in any other matter <br />that is now being determined by the water court under the 1969 law. <br />This has b22n brought forcibly to our attention here in recent weeks <br />in these cases now in Water Divisions 4, 5 and 6. This board knows <br />that the state di.d enter an appearance and the federal government <br />moved to strike our entry of appearance. The water master referee <br />has permitted us to come into those cases. So far we are in there <br /> <br />-20- <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br />