Laserfiche WebLink
. ?? . <br />? 25 <br />? <br />further.: .. ? ? . <br />THE • COURT: Before we go:on, let me cleI don't understand tlie compact relevance: since ' it' s.a: :. <br />nonconsumpt'ive use and?the same water is_goingdown : <br />stream ?-before the course as it did after' the course. .?MR. PQRZAK: :. We agree, but maybe.. the C.ourt <br />willbetter und.ers,tand t.hat the argument that is.being raised, and it's a very emotional argument; it's the one t}iat's drivirig their proposed legislation,' that if -you were to: position . one of these water rights at a. <br />state lirie for, example,; that you would allow a bunch of <br />water.to go oiA of state that would adversely.impact <br />Colorado compact entitlement. I think we have demonstrat.ed, hopefully; to the Court. that.,nothi:n?g <br />could be further from_ the truth witli respec.t to thi's <br />particular case; but we also want to address th..e' ' <br />argument. that is being_used.to create much.fervor <br />against proliferation of these types of.claimed-water rights. . . THE COUAT: I.suppose that would be true if., <br />someorie wanted to.create a kayak:course at Julesburg; ? <br />but that's riot the case here. You're going to have to . <br />convince me morethoroughly that there is a coinpact - <br />issue before. I qo jnto that. . . <br />Mr. S ims : . . . -.