Laserfiche WebLink
TK: thanks for comments. Can't let one point go. Irrigator 40 cfs too much for one acre foot. <br />EK may consider it a takings for general benefit of future user w/o compensation. Apply in this <br />case. <br />RK don't want to give them ideas. Machivilan sense bill was patched together compromise. <br />Some issues raised if we were to attempt to deal with in legislation leg dead or still dealing with. <br />Erik correct that extra effort to meet cooperative settlements all benefit. Especially with instream <br />flow program. Not senior rights. Some are gaining degree of seniority. Affecting exhanges. <br />Attempt to compromise and reach settlement so abt 1 out of 100 cases makes it to court. Future <br />uses issue don't know that look at future potential reservoir sites, point a, water user x. apply a <br />measure of anticipation to how things will evolve in future. Our stat responibility is to future and <br />existing. A balancing act. <br />Ek when balance by reducting water right, what have you done to property right portion? <br />RK if more than reasonable amount. <br />EK that's a give applied to every water right (minstandard). Regardless of use. <br />DM: not property right until decreed. <br />EK some disagree. Kim balcom it's the use of water that vests water right not the paper work in <br />the court. Court just affirms right and assign priority right. <br />DM brings up nature of water rights are diff. Build it then use it. Other types you use then build. <br />Nature is different. <br />Roberts: farm bureau. Really agree with eric and speculative use. Only give minimal amount of <br />water needed for rec use. Ag comes out short if only look at dollar. If give more than necessary. <br />Munic come to ag water when need it. Whole state looses. Haven't had chance to look at rules, <br />but one thing imporant is minimal. Are necessary but not phenomenal amount of water. <br />RK realize sacrifice for ag guys to get here, haying in the west. <br />David Halford: again. As eric said have lots of concerns. Issue eric mentioned, from legal <br />perspective. Why if constitution allows munic to condemn ?? Why findiing under 12e <br />independent from about speculative barriars. Water law have been anti speculation and use <br />as measure of right. Water court do that quite well. Cwcb has not been forum that effeciently <br />address speculative right. This turns on head and .... Deny exisiting use of speculation. Amount <br />of use also important. 12f. also concerned about how address reasonable use. Some ways might <br />not be consistent. Less than ave monthly flows, x method, transport craft w/o harm or threat. <br />Amt necessary for boat passage. Not nec consistent w /one another or reasonable rec rexperience. <br />Shotgun approach make it difficult for ap to come in and proove. Another point cwcb develop <br />other factors to be considered. What doing here. But in rules include other factors that staill <br />