Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Ditch Company and the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District. The court, in <br />essence, merely ratified a voluntary agreement reached between the panies. The public <br />interest considerations incorporated into the court decree were not required by statute; <br />legislation did not provide the coun with any guidance or direction aside from precluding <br />impairment of water rights. Tommy Thompson, the district's general manager, notes that <br />"'in other court settlements and agreements, when water was sold there was nothing to <br />protect those people.',43 If the revegetation effon is successful, Thompson foresees "an <br />environmentally improved landscape, with native grasses and return of wildlife, as well as <br />an economy based on ranching in the area.n44 <br /> <br />La Paz County, Arizona <br />While legislation designed to encourage the reallocation of water in California has <br />failed to generate any large-scale market activity, Arizona's 1980 Groundwater <br />Management Act has promoted water movement by severing groundwater rights from the <br />overlying land and pl~cing a cap on agricultural water use. The statute created three types <br />of grandfathered water rights: <br />(1) irrigation rights which may be converted to other uses; <br />(2) type I nonirrigation rights whose water, although appurtenant to the <br />overlying land, may be transferred (the well must remain on the original <br />land); and <br />(3) type II nonirrigation rights which are severable from the land (the well <br />location may change).45 <br /> <br />While permitting a change from irrigation to nonirrigation uses, the agricultural cap <br />precludes the reversion of the water right to irrigation. Additionally, the conversion of an <br />irrigation right to a type I nonirrigation right requires retirement of the irrigated land. <br />Because the entire right is conveyed with the transfer of land title and may not be split up <br /> <br />22 <br />