Laserfiche WebLink
Chris: compromise language. Orginally was proof of ownership, maybe. Worked on making it an <br />access rather than ownership issue. Don't recall any discussion of whether had implcation for or <br />intended to address right to float or protect private property. <br />Miskel: speculation on future as requirement. Would you agree that presence of one of thes water <br />rights could have affect of preventing future changes to wr upstream, or exchanges. <br />Chris: not uniquely, but like any other wr could. <br />Miskel: granting of water right have some affect on ability of water users to develop and use <br />compact entitelments. <br />Chris: Board has to look at this and part of charge from leg. Want to make 2 points: <br />Appropriateness of applicant to make that speculation. Also appropriateness of applicant and <br />board w/o sideboard a complete what if, for any future water right possibly conceivable. <br />Miskel: but if there were some evidence presented to board or aware of board should consider. <br />Chris: consider, but also in light as this leg making recreation a beneficial use, a water right <br />much like any other water right. Could represent same kind of concerns to potential or proposed. <br />Miskel: getting at embeded question, priority of use of water. More appropriate to reserve 1000 <br />sec feet to float on or ag or municipal use for some time in future. Does your board feel during <br />consideration process that should be no priority consideration., <br />Chris: think leg addressed this. P 4 paragraph 15 of leg, leg made clear that entities allowed to <br />hold this type of water right include munipial that these don't constitute municpal or domestic <br />right in state constition. So if go in in future to look at appropriateness or relative value, that that <br />can be done under constititution. <br />Miskel: agree that take this into consideration. <br />Chris: take into account para 15. Don't elevate to top prioritiy for pref of use. <br />EW: only if there is a tie in priority. Not pref of use, parag 15 cites this conventional hierarchy if <br />all rights are equal that's how divide up water. <br />Felicity: Yes that's correct. How case law interprets that. <br />Chris: also thought extended to ability to condemn other water rights. <br />F: case law is sparse. Municipal use has that right, but industrial doesn't. might be inherent in <br />other powers of municipalities. Farmers and industry does not. Some districts do, but <br />conservancy districts not one of them. <br />RK: not be converted to consumptive use (purpose of para 15) <br />El <br />