Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />of some extra legal capability on the part of the state. Mr. Sparks <br />says it is not available. Perhaps we should hear from Mr. Robbins to <br />further comment on that particular area, that this is a junior right, <br />or if it isn't, what implications it might have. <br /> <br />MR. ROBBINS: I can say no more than what Mr. Sparks has said. Under <br />the water law, it's a 1976 or if we don't get these things typed up <br />until 1977, it's a 1977 priority date. If you are a water user and were <br />to go into the Water Court and file a 1976 date, you know how much <br />clout you have with an l880 right; not very much, and the state doesn't <br />have any more. Whatever right a junior appropriator has, the state has <br />no more. <br /> <br />MR. STAPLETON: Just so we can get everything out, we have a consultant, <br />too. Let's ask the consultant to comment on that. We ought to have <br />everything out on the table. <br /> <br />MR. MOSES: I don't have quite the same problems with the lakes that I <br />do with some of the stream recommendations as far as the impact of the <br />state's decree is concerned. I agree with Mr. Kroeger that the informa- <br />tion we get ought to be reasonably accurate, and I have to agree with <br />Mr. Wyler -- I have to listen anyway and accept what Mr. Wyler and Mr. <br />Helton and Mr. Kochman tell us, that these are reasonably accurate. ,I <br />don't know how far out Fred has waded in Castilleja Lake. It's the old <br />story about using averages. A six foot tall guy is not very happy if <br />he is wading across a stream that averages six feet in depth without a <br />snorkel. I don't anticipate the State Engineer is goin~ to be flooded <br />with well applications in the vicinity of these lakes, but it seems to <br />me that the State Engineer might turn down a well application if the <br />state had a decree that it would not turn down if the state didn't have <br />a decree. I think that's an added consideration. Again, he's got to <br />make a determination if this water is available for appropriation. If <br />the state has appropriated it, there might be water available. <br /> <br />We have been over this a number of times. It's certainly not my <br />prerogative to question the wisdom, of the legislature in adopting the <br />statute that tells the.Water Board to make these filings. As long as <br />that legislation is on the books, I think that the Water Board has an <br />obligation to make them. There will be some exceptions, some areas <br />where the Board, in its discretion, I think properly defers making <br />applications until it gets some further information because of the legal <br />implications. By and large, it seems to me that the Board has little <br />or no discretion in the matter. <br /> <br />MR. STAPLETON: Do you agree that determination in 1976, in these areas, <br />would have no effect on prior adjudications? <br /> <br />MR. MOSES: No, there is no question about that. This is just a 1976 <br />appropriation. On streams, the real effect on a stream is to prevent <br />somebody from changing conditions on the stream from what they are in <br />1976, or a lake~ too. In other words, if the state gets its appro- <br />priation, it's in a position to object to any changes which would bring <br />the level of the lake or the flow of the stream below the minimum flow <br />decree which the state obtains, just like any other junior appropriator, <br /> <br />-2l- <br />