Laserfiche WebLink
<br />.uu"% <br /> <br />MR. SPARKS: <br /> <br />MR. BURR: <br /> <br />MR. STAPLETON: <br />MR. L. WILLIA!\1S: <br /> <br />MR. STAPLETON: <br />MR. BURR: <br />MR. MOSES: <br /> <br />deserves due consideration but the irrigators are <br />getting more in the minority all the while and <br />the other organizations are getting more in the <br />majority and it looks like we should halfway try <br />to protect the irrigators." <br /> <br />"Well, of course, I don't know of any group <br />more able to protect themselves than the people <br />in the Arkansas Valley. I don't know of any <br />group in the state that is more able to protect <br />themselves." <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />"Well, if they are for it, of course I have <br />nothing more to say. I was just merely thinking <br />of the few bugs in this thing yet." <br /> <br />"Lew, did you have a question?" <br /> <br />"The way I understand it, this irrigation <br />law, that if any owner of a decree doesn't need <br />that water it shall be turned to a junior decree. <br />It appears to me that if they buy a decree up <br />the stream and change the point of diversion, <br />that any junior user along that stream below <br />there could ask for the water. I think it would <br />be subject to junior decree if the senior decree <br />can't use it. It can't be stored if the junior <br />decree wants to use it for direct irrigation. <br />That's the law, isn't it?" <br /> <br />"Do you have a comment, Mr. Burr?" <br /> <br />"That's what I had in mind." <br /> <br />"The court, when passing on either the change <br />of point of diversion or the change of use, is <br />empowered to make such restrictions, reductions <br />and regulations in the new use so that the net <br />effect on the stream and on the junior appro- <br />priators will be the same as though the change <br />were not made. For example, we constantly have <br />situations where a municipality acquires anirri- <br />gation right and changes it to domestic use. <br />Obviously, the burden on the stream on domestic <br />use is going to be greater than it would be on <br />an irrigation use because the domestic demand is <br />24 hours a day, 365 days a year, whereas the ir- <br />rigation demand is only during the irrigating <br />season. So the courts protect that by saying <br />that the total demand on the stream, under the <br />new use, will not be any greater than the total <br /> <br />I <br />