BOARD02242

• Board Meeting Date: 1/17/1962
• Description: Minutes and Resolution
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Meeting

2776

planning and always goes on to say 'related
land use'. Wi th the interpretation tha t Mr.
Kuiper has on that, I don't think the Commis-
sion differs considerably. I think their
thinking there was, first of all, that naturally
in considering water policy you have to, of
necessity, consider the land too. but that it
somewhat dilutes the bill to constantly refer
to it; and second, I think they looked at that
language with a jaundiced eye from the viewpoint
that they might be expressing here (now this
may be a misinterpretation, I don't know) a
view that has been put out considerably, that
the water is tied to the land and that conse-
quently the person owning the land owns the
water. This is a view, as you know, put forth
by the Justice Department in all these confer-
ences on states water rights and states water
rights bills. I think that was the thinking
of the Commission at that time, Mr. Chairman."

I

MR. STAPLETON: "Are there any members of the Investigation
Commission who would care to conunent at this
time on the report or the comments that have
been made so far? Mr. Saunders."

MR. SAUNDERS:

"I would supplement this to the extent of
picking it up where Don Hamburg just did. On
this paragraph 3 you have here with reference
to land use. John Barnard, Sr., Senator John-
son and I all have had some rather intimate
experience with the policies of the Department
of Justice which associate the ownership of
federal lands with the ownership of federal
water rights and we see, in the constant repeti-
tion of the words 'related land use' as used
in the bill, a representation of this viewpoint
which is absolutely contrary to the viewpoint
of the State of Colorado. That was the reason
for the particular reference to this item.

I

Another thing with respect to paragraph
1, that Governor Johnson, I think, even more
forcefully expressed than he did here this
morning, was that the reason for listing our
order of priority uses is that we are represent-
ing Colorado in any statement that we make and
we may assume that if New Jersey or Alabama or