Laserfiche WebLink
<br />504 <br /> <br />"We have no report that would be particularly <br />enlightening to. the Board. My opinion is <br />that we do not want to go in and ask for a <br />reopening unless Colorado could be benefited <br />by such a move. Whether we would want to go <br />in even if there is a fair chance is a <br />matter for the Board to determine. We <br />certainly do not want to go in and ask for <br />a reopening of the decree if there is a <br />chance we may come out with less than we <br />had before. The wisdom of such action is <br />entirely up to the Board." <br /> <br />MR. CRAWFORD: "Is there any discussion from other members <br />of the Board?" <br /> <br />MR. DUNBAR: <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />MR. MOSES: "Isn't it your feeling that the Board should <br />. not take any action until you have a chance <br />to consult with other parties?" <br /> <br />MR. ROBERTS: "Yes. I think the people who own the <br />Skyline and Laramie-Poudre water rights <br />should be consulted." <br /> <br />MR. MOSES: "Then by common consent the matter should <br />go over until you have had a chance to do <br />this." . <br /> <br />MR. ROBERTS: "Yes." <br /> <br />MR. PUGHE: "Do they have a priority?" <br /> <br />MR. ROBERTS: "No. They have split ,priority. First <br />in order of priority are meadowland owners; <br />next in order of priority is the Skyline <br />Ditch; next are Wyoming rights for the <br />-Wheat land Dist rict; and the next, in terms <br />of priority, are rights for the Laramie- <br />Poudre Tunnel. There is community of <br />ownership between the Laramie-Poudre <br />Tunnel and the Skyline Canal so that the <br />owners of that. pair of,rights have two <br />different sefs of priorities and the <br />dates for the major Wyoming uses fall <br />between those two dates." <br /> <br />I <br />