Laserfiche WebLink
■ <br /> but it's not necessary to do so,they simply would not get a priority date for their <br /> water right. It would be a perpetually junior water right for the amount they <br /> appropriated. <br /> Rolfs: By merely using it under these set of circumstances of a free river,they acquire the <br /> ability to do that,it's just not legally protectable in any kind of call? <br /> Weiss: Exactly. <br /> Pope: Wendy,this is David. Is it your view that that process would be consistent with <br /> the terminology that it would be a valid water right owned and controlled by the <br /> State of Colorado? <br /> Weiss: Yes, it is a valid water right. It is a perpetually junior water right because it does <br /> not get a priority date for purposes of administration,but it is a water right. <br /> Pointon: This is Tom Pointon,I'd like to hear David Pope's answer to Mark Stark's <br /> question. <br /> Trujillo: Mr. Pope, Mr. Pointon just asked a question, did you hear that? <br /> ' Pop e: Yes, I think so. <br /> ' Trujillo: Do you care to respond to it? <br /> ' Pope: Tom,basically,I certainly understand Mark's question and in essence comment ... <br /> I'm aware of the fact that when we have flood control operations like has occurred <br /> and there's ... at least as compared to normal conditions, a lot of water in the <br /> ' river,the Corps is aware, as probably anyone,that when they evacuate flood <br /> storage that there's a point at which some people may view it as being too much <br /> water, other people may view it as being beneficial because they're up on a little <br /> higher ground and they get more recharge,but it depends on who that landowner <br /> is and what their situation is. I'm certainly aware that there have been individuals <br /> that have felt like they have received damage to their adjacent properties,they are <br /> ' very low properties, some of which farmed up pretty close to the river back in all <br /> those years when we had very little water. In any event,I think I understand the <br /> point. We're certainly not claiming a huge water shortage during this time period. <br /> My comment was simply earlier made to illustrate just because there's a substantial <br /> amount of water flowing in the river, doesn't mean there aren't some benefits from <br /> that ... there's been a very large amount of recharge that Kansas has received, <br /> perhaps there has been some cost to that as well, but we think that's probably <br /> minor as compared to the total amount of water. Relative to the total amount of <br /> water,the amount we're talking about here is pretty small, and if a proper <br /> G:\ARCA\MEETINGS\1999\SP61499A revl.wpd <br /> 13 edited:December 13,2004;printed:December 13,2004 <br /> I <br />