BOARD01477

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

court of that district. The water flows in
more than one district and the division
engineer must administer the waters of the
river on the basis of taking the decrees and
considering them as one decree.

I

In this water court concept, this has
been talked about for a long time, and it
is felt that if we had a judge whose prior-
ity would be water matters until we accom-
plished this herculean task, we are going to
get through with it a lot faster than if we
go to seventy separate district courts in
the State of Colorado. Both of these bills,
by the way, correlate, although this draft
in more detail, and I am sure that is what
Mr. Vandemoer has in mind, than some of the
provisions of Senate Bill 81. But under
Senate Bill 81 it is clear to all the law-
yers, at least those who have looked at it,
that you can do two things on an alternate
point of diversion of a well. You can tie
that well in to your ditch to the extent of
your decreed rights, surface rights, as an
alternate point of diversion. In addition
to that, at that well head you can have a
second water right for something in addition
thereto in order of priorities on the river.
And while wells are not mentioned specifi-
cally, the legislation was drafted as all
of our legislation has been in the past until
1965, where you are diverting from a common
source whether you divert by well, by gallery,
a ditch, it's all a part of a bucket of water.
There is a certain amount of water you have
to go around. We are in short supply in
many areas. The problem comes when you put
your cup in the bucket and then you poke a
hole in the side of the bucket and take some
more.

I

As Larry has said, much of this comes
from Senate Bill 81. Very few people have
ever criticized this division court setup.
As a matter of fact, ten lawyers recommended