My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD02576
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
2001-3000
>
BOARD02576
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 3:17:08 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 7:17:24 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
2/5/1973
Description
Agenda or Table of Contents, Minutes, Memos
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.
/
37
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 />background. your thinking on how it was drafted. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Mr. Balcomb: ~'lell. vIe felt 'that we had to consider both article 5 and <br />article 6 of the constitution to come up wi,th some statutory changes. <br />Article 5 reserves the ~ater to the people. It doesn't speak to <br />diversions. but rather to appropriations. I believe that is the lan- <br />guage. I think the Rocky Mountain Power case addresses itself only <br />to the right to divert in section 6. With that in mind. we think it <br />is worth a try. As I say. the timing is different. <br /> <br />l~. Stapleton: Now let me ask you. Ken. what are the standards that a <br />water judge would look at when he is required to preserve the natural <br />environment to a reasonable degree? <br /> <br />Mr. Balcomb: I think this is a matter that is subject to proof. just <br />how much water does it t~te to irrigate forty acres of land or how <br />much water does it take to supply a municipality. or anything else. <br /> <br />Mr. Stapleton: As you contemplate it. there will be no standards other <br />than the standards that are developed by presenting these matters as <br />evidence one way or the other as these cases come up? <br /> <br />l~. Balcomb: To my knowledge. we have no statutory standards for any <br />other uses of water. We just have these two limitations. on each end <br />of the scale, you might say. What is beneficial use for one man may <br />be waste to the other. <br /> <br />Mr. Stapleton: Do you realize that we are making a legislative record? <br />The lawyers pro and con can read this with some interest. Well now. <br />how does the ad hoc committee then propose to get this before the <br />legislature? Has it been printed yet? <br /> <br />~tr. Balcomh: Ninety-seven, yes. <br /> <br />....:. <br /> <br />Hr. 'Sparks: Yes. it has now been re-introduced as Senate Bill No. 97. <br />The Exhibit B is now Senate Bill No. 97. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Hr. Stapleton: What is the ad hoc committee's position on the consti- <br />tutional amendment? Do you agree with the recommendation of the <br />director and the staff that the constiutional amendment go through <br />hopefully at this session concurrently with the consideration of Senate <br />Bill 977 <br /> <br />~tr. Balcomb: I think the ad hoc committee would rather defer the <br /> <br />-5- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.