BOARD00188

• Board Meeting Date: 11/14/1962
• Description: Minutes
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Meeting

JUDGE CONOUR:

MR. GEISSINGER:

JUDGE CONOUR:

MR. GEISSINGER:

equitable apportionment to a~y marked degree.
It was designed and set up, I" think obviously,
for the purpose of meeting an administrative
problem. For that reason it was a compact
originally designed, in my judgment, to pro-
tect the water users in both states.

1

I quite agree with you, and also agree
with Mr. Stapleton's suggestion, if there is
any thought that this might be creating any
kind of a precedent maybe we ought to have
an additional paragraph or statement in this
compact to the effect that it shall not be
considered as such. The whole compact is in
three articles and all the second article
does is divide the water between these water
users in the two states for purposes of ad-
ministration as it spells out the points of
diversion. It isn't like it is in Colorado
where, on an intrastate stream or within one
of our water districts, you can go on into
the state court having original jurisdiction
and notify all the water users. To me it
isn't a compact in the sense that we normally
think of a compact. But on the other hand I
think your point is well taken and I think,
perhaps, that a statement along the lines
suggested by Mr. Stapleton in this legisla-
tion would be well worth inserting. It cer-
tainly wouldn't do any harm."

"Mr. Geissinger."

"Yes, sir. II

"As I see it, the situation is not greatly
different in what often arises in cases in-
volving changes of point of diversion. Do
I also understand that the owners of this
water are not actually giving up the eight-
tenths of a foot, they are merely agreeing
they will not try to change the point of
diversion of that eight-tenths?"

1

"No, they are actually giving it up,
Judge Conour."