BOARD01477

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

o~uo

Geissinger that there are some items in the
seven bills which are not politically feasible
at this time, no matter how sound they may be
from a theoretical point of view.

I think this bill eliminates most of
those controversial matters. I think the I
mechanics of appointment of commissions can
be worked out to the satisfaction of everyone
and I am sure that in the final draft this
will be done. I think it has merit because
so far as the correlation is concerned of
wells and surface rights, it's voluntary,
nobody is forced to do anything. One gentle-
man said that his ditch company was not able
to work out a system where the individual
wells and the ditch system could be tolerated
with the surface right. This doesn't require
them to do it. It means that unless they
come up with a plan, their wells will have
their actual date of appropriation rather
than being tied to surface rights. But
nobody is forced to do anything here.

I want to assure Clarence, as best I
can, that in reading this I don't see any-
thing that jeopardizes existing surface
rights. Now I may be wrong. I've been
wrong many times, but the language through-
out is designed to protect existing rights.
It is supplemented by affording an oppor-
tunity to people with wells who have little
or no priority on a direct priority basis
to tie those wells to a surface right if
they so desire.

I know this Board has never failed to
assume its responsibilities. I am sure it
will not today. I am hopeful that out of
this discussion can come an approval in I
principle of this bill which, as Mr. Geis-
singer has already said, is largely taken
from existing bills. Mr. Sparks said this
too. Then leave it up to Mr. Sparks, Mr.
Welborn, Mr. Ten Eyck and Mr. Kuiper to