BOARD01477

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

few years where we are not quite sure what

the law is until we are told.
to have it written down as far
although they realize it can't
dOWn in black and white.

They'd like
as possible
all be put

I

3. Favor a provision for a basin com-
mission to be appointed from a list of quali-
fied persons. In other words. the Farm Bureau.
the Cattlemen's. and the Grange people there.
how they spell it out. thought the commission
should be elected. But. boy. you hash that
out for about an hour and you decide you can't
elect them. You go out and try to elect peo-
ple that are going to decide on your water
rights. who are you going to vote for? I
think you finally decide that appointment is
the best way. They did suggest in point #4
though. back to Clarence's point, that although
the Natural Resources Director appoints this
commission, that he appoint the commission
from a group of qualified persons recommended
by the Water Conservation Board. Clarence.
they had the same feeling you did. that one
man shouldn't do this and they suggested
that maybe the Water Conservation Board could
submit a list of qualified people that the
Resources Director could use to make his ap-
pointments. Just a thought they had.

4. That a commission be appointed or
contracted for by the Director of Natural
Resources from a group of qualified persons
recommended to him by the Water Conservation
Board. That's what I was just talking about.

I

5. Financing of state engineer's office
for administration of water fees to be
financed by the state. That's the one that
Jim mentioned. The whole state feels pretty
strongly about that. The water users. I
think. are willing. if they make a change in
point of diversion. to pay for it on their own
individual change, but as far as the adminis-
tration of the state engineer's office they
feel that should be a state responsibility.