BOARD00198

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

u~vu

denied. I say that because it is implicit
in that decision, as I read it, that the
surface appropriator that is taking water
from the surface of the stream certainly has
the prior right. The Supreme Court has laid
down certain guidelines to the effect, . as-I I
read it, that the appropriator from the wells
also has the right to divert that water and
these rights must be administered according
to priority.

If that's the case, before we can work
out the primary objective of this legisla-
tion, it appears to me there has to be some
determination, some further determination of
the right of those who are diverting from the
underground or subsurface flows of the streams.
I have come to the conclusion that if this is
a constitutional question, it's going to be
extremely difficult for the legislature to
solve it. In that decision I thought the
Supreme Court set up certain guidelines and
it was my tentative conclusion that some kind
of machinery must be set up to carry out and
put in effect the guidelines as a method of
procedure that the Supreme Court set up in
that case. And it is my further conclusion
that the court has said that the state engi-
neer's office must make rules and regulations
and those rules and regulations must accord to
certain standards. With the application of
those standards then this question of conflict
between rights can be determined.

There are specific matters in this legis-
lation that I think may require a good deal
more' consideration. I'm inclined to agree
with Mr. Vandemoer's suggestion that we are
biting off too much at one time and maybe we
should look essentially to the solution of I
that one problem before we try to have the
legislature change and modify the laws in all '
respects.

At a later time I can and would like to