Laserfiche WebLink
<br />MR. BARNARD: <br /> <br />I MR. CRAWFORD: <br />MR. MOSES: <br /> The <br /> MR. MILLER: <br /> <br />MR. WHITTEN: <br /> <br />MR. BARNARD: <br /> <br />MR. MOSES: <br /> <br /> MR. STAPLETON: <br />I ~m. MOSES: <br /> MR. CRAvlFORD: <br /> <br />659 <br /> <br />"Would it be appropriate to move <br />that the committee be instructed, in <br />making its recommendations, to eliminate <br />Sub-paragraph (e) of Section 4." <br /> <br />"I second the motion." <br /> <br />"It has been moved and seconded that <br />Sub-paragraph lee) of Section 4 be elimi- <br />nated from the bill. All those in favor <br />say 'aye'; opposed, the same." <br /> <br />motion was unanimously passed upon vote. <br /> <br />"I would like to move that the <br />statement on all wells heretofore ac- <br />cepted by the State Engineer be con- <br />strued as complying with the proposed <br />legislation. " <br /> <br />"I would go further with that and <br />set out a date." <br /> <br />"I am concerned with this. If we <br />do this it is going to eliminate any <br />uniformity in the filings. We could <br />provide that the State Engineer could <br />accept these filings if he finds them <br />to be in conformance with this act." <br /> <br />"I would go along with the State <br />Engineer's determination as to what <br />was adequate or inadequate but I feel <br />qUite strongly that a man who has spent <br />the money in filing his claims should' <br />have every consideration. It seems to <br />me the State Engineer's office will not <br />accept those statements unless they have <br />all the information they consider nec- <br />essary." <br /> <br />"On an old well you deepen or recon- <br />struct, I think there again the regu- <br />lations can require or not require the <br />filing of a new statement." <br /> <br />"Any more discussion on Mr. Miller's <br />motion or are we ready for the question?" <br /> <br />"Question." <br />