Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br /> <br />ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS <br /> <br />THE AUTHORS MAKE THE FOLLOWING ASSUMPTIONS IN TillS REPORT AND THE <br />READER MUST BE AWARE THAT THE RESULTS OF THIS REPORT MAY BE <br />SUBSTANTIALLY IMPACTED BY A FUTURE CHANGE IN CONDITIONS: <br /> <br />1. Title to the water rights is good and marketable, and the water rights are valued as if free and clear <br />of any or all liens or encumbrances. <br /> <br />2. The water rights decreed to the Keesee Ditch are valid and enforceable and the water rights have <br />not been abandoned, in whole or in part. <br /> <br />3. The historical consumptive use is based upon the irrigation of no more than 1,400 acres with the <br />water available "in priority to. the Keesee Ditch. <br /> <br />4. There are no unquantifIed senior claims to water, for example, Federal Reserved Water Rights, <br />Indian Reserved Water Rights, or claims based on Spanish and Mexican law, that would materially <br />diminish the supply of water available under the priority of the water rights. <br /> <br />5. Any change in the Operating Principles for Trinidad Reservoirwill not materially diminish the supply <br />of water available to the Keesee Ditch. <br /> <br />6. l1tle ongoing litigation in Kansas v. Colorado will not result in a material diminution in the supply <br />of water legally and physically available to the Keesee Ditch. <br /> <br />7. 111e Amended Rules and Regulations Governing the Diversion and Use of Tributary Ground Water <br />in the Arkansas River Basin in Colorado ("Amended Rules') will not result in a material diminution <br />in the amount of water legally and physically available to the Keesee Ditch. No consideration is <br />given in this report to the possibility that full replacement of post -Compact depletions under the <br />Amended Rules may increase the amount of water in Conservation Storage and thereby increase <br />the amount of water legally and physically available to the Keesee Ditch by virtue of the <br />operation of the Arkansas River Compact and the intrastate priority system. <br /> <br />8. There are no material changes in manner of administration of water rights on the Arkansas River <br />and that the 1980 Operating Plan for John Martin Reservoir and the Offset Account remain in <br />place, and that the Amended Rules remain in effect without material change. <br /> <br />9. The ongoing litigation in Kansas v. Colorado does not result in a modification of the Arkansas <br />River Compact. <br /> <br />10. The information furnished on comparable sales is correct. <br /> <br />Page 3 of 66 <br />