Originally Posted by bldrmorgan
I have to say that I agree with Mark Squillace and what he states in the KDBI video, that in order for anything to move forward "smoothly" the law of the constitution needs to be defined clearly. There is too much of a grey area with the current language allowing too much speculation from both sides of what the law is stating. Once the law is clearly readable, the foundation will be set for the state and the people to hash this out.
I feel that if the supreme court did get involved, the public's rights to the water would benefit much more than the land owning opposition. Thats just my .02 though...
The problem is getting there - The legislature has the power to pass a resolution asking for an interpretation of law, and we know that's about as likely to happen as a snow day in hell. The governor has that option at his disposal as well, but doing so would likely spell the end of his little guest pass gravy train at the Wigwam Club (where, by the way, he's affectionetly known as the 'charity case' by the members). Last, there's the good ol fashioned route, through district court, appeals court, and then to the supreme court. The last option is the only one currently on the table, and that'll probably take 5 years or more and cost a pile of cash.