BOARD01477

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

it in 1962 after consultation and this is not
a Jim Geissinger innovation. This is some-
thing that has been talked about for years
and years and it fits in very beautifully with
the concept of integration because ultimately
it isn't going to be the water commission
that is going to be adjudicating these water I
rights. They are going to make initial find-
ings under this proposal. It isn't the
division engineer that would be doing it
either under the other setup. I mean by
that, the Senate Bill 81 procedure where the
division engineer does this.

We have made prov1s10n in Senate Bill
81 for contracts, contractual type services,
outside of civil service to get this job done
and if it takes two or three people in an
area we are limited there by the one approach
whereas the division approach might have
eight or nine people in that area working on
the problem at one time. But they will be
going from there directly into court. If
sOmebody feels they are hurt by anything that
is done, we've made provisions through this
advisory board setup for the division engi-
neer to call upon this advisory committee in
regard to any of these problems confronting
him. We also made provision that the ad-
visory committee can step into the picture
and request the division engineer to be
heard on the matter. When that is done the
hearing is put off an additional 30 days so
that we will have the local views and the
local flavor.

With reference to this whole overall
problem, and I don't want to get into details,
there may be some questions, but we have
stuck with the division approach. under the I
existing statutes, if you change a point of
diversion on the stream from one point to
another, and also change the character of
uSe or type of use, there is a statutory
proceeding for it within each of these 70