Laserfiche WebLink
I <br /> m <br /> 24 <br /> 0 <br /> 0 <br /> C) <br /> m <br /> 0 <br /> D <br /> H <br /> and having diverted for use and beneficial use, the exact <br /> amounts of those diversions, we will say 160,000 acre feet, <br /> if they had made that, and you turn around and say that Z <br /> this allocation is measurable in terms of beneficial con- <br /> 0 <br /> sumptive use, you ask somebody to determine what that is <br /> and they go down and measure the amount of returns and <br /> determine the effect upon the flow of the river, they come <br /> with a figure maybe of 100,000 acre feet, and they say that <br /> is all Colorado is using, not what they divert. <br /> Now, we are in the unfortunate or the fortunate <br /> position of having records of our diversions, and it seems <br /> like it is a much simpler and less complicated matter to ap. <br /> proach this division on the basis of use, meaning the diver- <br /> sion of water for use, and not have to go into questions of <br /> how much of that water returns to the- stream after it is used. <br /> I also want to point out in the decision in the <br /> Larimer River ease where very voluminous testimony was present- <br /> ed by both states oonoerned, the beneficial consumptive use <br /> of one group of affected interests, meadow land, ditches of <br /> the Larimer River, the Supreme Court in its decision condemn- <br /> ed that method as one which nobody could expect by a long <br /> detailed field examination to determine the amount,.-where- <br /> as head-gate diversions were clearly susceptible of inspec- <br /> tion by both states, and a matter of record that made com- <br /> parison very easy. <br />