Laserfiche WebLink
<br />The principal merit of the statutory approach is that it could be <br />implemented rather quickly. A constitutional amendment, on the other <br />hand. could not be implemented until after November, 1974. The <br />Governor has done considerable research in this matter and has gone <br />on record with the General Assembly as being in favor of a consti- <br />tutional amendment. I still concur with the Governor's conclusions <br />and recommendations. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />It seems that the most sensible course at this time would be to proceed <br />with both a constitutional amendment and statutory changes. If the <br />legislature at this time would authorize some state agency to proceed <br />with the classification of streams for the purpose of establishing <br />minimum stream flows, then no time would be lost in awaiting the <br />adoption of a constitutional amendment. unless the admendment were <br />rejected. However. if we were to proceed solely on the basis of a <br />statutory law at this time, it is very possible that considerable <br />time and effort could be declared a nullity by court decision at some <br />later date. It is therefore the staff recommendation that this Board <br />urge the Colorado General Assembly to proceed with both courses of <br />action. <br /> <br />Mr. Stapleton: Now who would like to talk for the ad hoc committee <br />at this point? The chairman is of Blue Cross and Blue Shield, is he, <br />or the ad hoc . All right. Ren. will you come up. First of all'. <br />I"take it that the language of Exhibit B represents the language that <br />your committee agreed to and you have no further changes to recommend <br />at this time. <br /> <br />Hr. Balcornb: That is correct. <br /> <br />Nr. Stapleton: Now how is your committee on the position expressed by <br />~~. Sparks in his memorandum that there are grave constitutional doubts <br />about this Senate Bill No. 79? Can you address yourself to that? <br /> <br />}~_ Balcomb: I don't think that the committee had any problem with the <br />fact that there is a grave constitutional problem. I think we also <br />felt nevertheless that the statutory change would make it almost <br />immediately as opposed to having to wait two years to think about a I <br />constitutional change. They hoped this statutory method would get a <br />court test in, the near future. r have not had an opportunity to <br />meet with any member of the ad hoc committee since that meeting. <br /> <br />v~. Stapleton: Can you tell the board and our guests just what the <br />amendment is intending and the language, and so forth? Give us some <br /> <br />-4- <br />