BOARD00198

• Board Meeting Date: 1/15/1969
• Description: Agenda or Table of Contents, Minutes, Memos
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Meeting

I

I did analyze about five of these bills
with some care. I must admit that this
underground water problem that you have in
the Arkansas and the South Platte is not a
problem with which we have to contend. The
attention that I have is on some other phases
of our water law. It's possible, though, that
since I have made a rather intense investiga-
tion and study of five of these bills, not
seven of them, I might be in a position where
I was not so close to the trees that I was
unable to see the forest.

This proposed legislation, as I see it,
has as one primary objective the integration
of all types of water rights. I believe
that's right. And to bring about the integra-
tion of all types of water rights. The
priority rights not now adjudicated must be
determined before they are brought into this
system. It appears to me that the recent
case of the Supreme Court, the Fellhauer case,
requires a great deal of study and analysis.
I dictated a little analysis of my views on
this subject but I'll try to express it a
little more briefly.

I

As I construe your problem, and it is a
problem of the State of Colorado, it is to
adjust the conflict between surface diversions
and subsurface diversions which are being made
by the drilling of wells and the diversion of
water in that manner. Now to get into an
integrated system where we have this master
plan of appropriations in each basin, we have
to determine just where the wells fit into
that picture. Getting back to the Fellhauer
case, it appeared to me that the Supreme Court
said in substance that the matter of determin-
ing the conflict between the surface diver-
sions and the underground diversions comes
under our constitution. The provision is to.
the effect that all of the waters of the
natural streams of Colorado belong to the
public and the right to divert will never be