BOARD00725

• Board Meeting Date: 1/18/1973
• Description: Agenda or Table of Contents, Minutes, Memos
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Meeting

Mr. Burr has zeroed in on one of the problems with this amendment. And
that is that you take away substantial value attached to water rights
if you restrict a change in the point of diversion or the place and
type of use. People in the state have to make up their minds as to I
what they want to do. If they want to keep the water in the streams,
then they must realize that it will restrict the opportunities to ~
transfer water from one use to another.

I think the amendment that Larry has drafted accomplishes the purpose
which he set out to do. There are serious implications. This doesn't
say only transmountain changes in the point of diversion. This applies
to any little stream when you have been using the water in that little
valley and you want to take it over the hill and use it in the next
little valley. The results are that minimum stream flows will be
preserved, but at the expense of limiting future uses. I think that
people ought to understand that.

One of the things that makes a water right valuable at the present
time is Colorado's free market in water and the relatively free right
to change the type of use and point of diversion of that water, as
long as you don't injure any other water user. Now this will qualify
that by adding another proviso in there, provided you don't injure
any other water user and provided you leave in the stre~m whatever
minimum has been established by the legislature. As long as people
are clear on what they are doing there is no problem. I want knowl-
edgeable people in the water field to understand some of the ramifica-
tions of this proposal.

Mr. Vandemoer: Mr. Chairman, could I ask a question?

Mr. Stapleton: Yes, ~tr. Vandemoer.

l~. Vandemoer: Would this interfere with or stop the use of irrigated
land someday, Ray? I mean it is where we have less and less of it.
It would be nice if subdivisions could be built on dry land hills and
the irrigated lands could be kept for irrigation. But what you sug-
gest here, that would include wells too because wells are part of I
the natural streams along the South Platte. Don't you defeat the
purpose of your land zoning? Are you holding irrigated lands for
irrigation if you say you can't move this water to dry land and put
in some wells and put in some houses and leave your land for the
valley, leave your land below it? It seems to me it is going to
make it more difficult to set up any kind of land planning in your
future development.

-25-