07-03-2012, 05:57 PM
Riverdog - yeah I caught the sarcasm just chose to ignore it. Sorry, it was a vehicle to open dialoge regarding Stream Access. Which based on my USAC involvement you KNOW how I feel.
Yes, Judge Pullan said, basically, what you described. But, you missed an important part as well: "Judge Pullan requested further briefing on whether H.B. 141's access restrictions violate public trust princliples." So, even though Pullan stated that the public has an easment. And, that the Legistature exeeded it's powers regarding HB-141. He gave legislation the right to regulate the use of these waters, providing it falls with-in public trust principles. And, he has not yet detirmined if HB-141 breeched these principles, pending opportunity from both sides to demonstrate.
Point being: As of today HB-141 still stands.
[signature]
Yes, Judge Pullan said, basically, what you described. But, you missed an important part as well: "Judge Pullan requested further briefing on whether H.B. 141's access restrictions violate public trust princliples." So, even though Pullan stated that the public has an easment. And, that the Legistature exeeded it's powers regarding HB-141. He gave legislation the right to regulate the use of these waters, providing it falls with-in public trust principles. And, he has not yet detirmined if HB-141 breeched these principles, pending opportunity from both sides to demonstrate.
Point being: As of today HB-141 still stands.
[signature]