this amendment would conform the Montana water rights language in the bill to the language that this body passed in the Colorado wilderness bill. The amendment changes neither the meaning nor the intent of the water rights section at all, but simply adds back to the language as originally drafted. As my colleagues know, water rights law is a delicate business, and frankly in our haste to draft clearer, more concise language, we strayed a bit from the Colorado formula. Several groups in Montana were not entirely comfortable about the new language, and, although no one really claimed that the language was not substantive, I want everyone to be comfortable with this water rights language because in Montana, as in so many other States, water rights is critically important, and so I am offering this language which restores a few words that were in the original Colorado language, and, in my judgment, this neither adds nor detracts from the water rights security that I had in the original language.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing an amendment related to Montana water rights during a legislative session.
Share
More from John Williams
The language of the gentleman from the other side would strike language I put in this bill, which is an effort to help inner city schools and rural schools. Let me talk to the rural schools' need here. Sixty percent of the school districts…
I came up with the idea for this study because industry and timber industry workers in Montana asked me to find a way to determine the carrying capacity of the land in order to be certain that Montana's natural resources extractive…
What if the schools guess wrong? The gentleman is asking whether or not the schools have to guess. I am saying, yes, they have to guess. What if they guessed wrong under the gentleman's amendment? If they are going to be litigated against…
I want to make clear I am not for an $8 million study. What we have in mind here would not cost $8 million or even any significant portion of $8 million.





