BOARD00985

• Board Meeting Date: 2/5/1969
• Description: Agenda or Table of Contents, Minutes, Memos
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Meeting

I

working tool in the electric analog models.
We are not here I'm sure. from talking to the
various members of the Board. to propose a
solution which we say is the only solution.
It is not. We have a statutory duty to per-
form and we would be remiss if we did not
perform it. It is up to someone else to
make a decision concerning whatever recom-
mendations we make.

In our bill we have tried to provide
for the integration of ground and surface
waters. We propose that this be done under
a procedure which is different from the ex-
isting system. The State of Colorado is' the
only state that I know of west of the
Mississippi River which forces its citizens
to go into court in the first instance to
determine technical matters concerning water
rights. There is no other state. I don't
believe. in the United States Which has such
a procedure. The result has been that we
have overburdened the courts with technical
matters. We impose a great additional expense
upon our citizens in both time and money.
What we have tried to create is a responsive
board in each area which would act as referee
to the'courts. Experience has shown in other
states that about 90 percent of protracted
court litigation can be eliminated. We have
provided that these boards would entertain
matters of adjudication. changes of water
rights, appeals from actions of the state
engineer and any other matters concerning
water. This is somewhat the same philosophy
as contained in Senate Bill 81 except that we
have provided much more detail.

I

We have suggested a more flexible method
of changing water rights. The future of this
state will be based upon the change of water
rights. perhaps from agricultural to indus-
trial and municipal purposes or for fishery
purposes or whatever it may be. This is a
matter which economic pressures dictate. We