Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I I <br /> <br />tributary ground water and the other side which would apply a <br /> <br />property right concept to ground water. He indicated disagree- <br /> <br />ment with the latter position because it would adversely affect <br /> <br />the ground water management act and related acts and cause a <br /> <br />legal caos. <br /> <br />He then reviewed tre Rio Grande-Conejos controversy. The <br /> <br />court supported the state's two river theory but disagreed on <br /> <br />the state engineer's regulation of wells. A motion for a new <br /> <br />trial has been submitted. <br /> <br />Shairman Stapleton then asked for a report from the state <br /> <br />engineer. Mr. Danielson pointed out that many of his concerns <br /> <br />are similar to those of the Attorney General in legal issues oyer <br /> <br />water management. He commented further on the Rio Grande-Conejos <br /> <br />decision. The judge has created a challenge for the state engin- <br /> <br />eer in ground water management and in requiring that the various <br /> <br />interests jointly consider how to make maximum beneficial use of <br /> <br />the very limited resource. <br /> <br />He suggested that the dam safety is a major concern and that <br /> <br />he has particular interest in the use of construction fund monies <br /> <br />for dam rehabilitation and for upgrading of existing irrigating <br /> <br />sys terns. <br /> <br />He commented on the apparent discrepancy between a Utah projec~, <br />'\-, <br />Watson Dam, and the Rangely project at Taylor draw with significant <br /> <br />differences in the ~llW~deSign criteria. His analysis sug- <br /> <br />gests that there are several factors leading to the apparent dis- <br /> <br />crepancy. One is that the Rangely project is immediately upstream <br /> <br />flDm the town of Rangely making it a high hazard situation which does <br />