BOARD02283 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I _45 The meeting recessed at 5:35 PI"l, Friday, December 6 to reconvene at 9:00 AM, Saturday, December 7, 1946. Saturday Morning - Deoember 7, 1946 The meeting was called to order at 9:30 A11 by Vice-Chainna.n Chris Wallrioh. Judge John B. O'Rourke who was absent at the previous daY'~meeting was present. It was explained that ~iss pointer was unable to remain for the seoond day's meeting of the Board and had asked that Judge A. W. McHendrie appear at the Board meeting for her. There being no objections to the request of Miss Pointer, Judge McHendrie proceeded to act for Miss Pointer. The Director called attention to the aotion taken by the Board at its last meeting respecting the controversy on the Laramie River and suggested that Jean S. Breitenstein, Attorney for the Board, be called upon to make a statement respecting what had transpired since the matter was discussed in the last meeting. Mr. Breitenstein made the following report. "First in regard to the suit of Benziger vs. later Supply and Storage Company, you recall that at the last meeting the Board passed three different resolutions in regard to that suit. If no stipulation could be obtatned to hold the suit in abeyance until next summer, that then no negotiation should be undertaken with Wyoming, and instead, the Attorney General should file a brief in the case setting forth the interstate aspects of the situation. A meeting was held with the Meadowland water users and as a result of that meeting they ooncluded to sign no stipulation to hold the case in abeyance. The permission of the Court was granted to file a brief and a brief was prepared and filed. A copy was serttto all members of the Board. The attorneys for the Transmountain Diversionists likewise filed a brief in the 'case. Mr. Sarohet requested until January to file a brief. So the case will probably not be heard by the Supreme Court until some time in the spring or fall of next year. I think \.e should all recognize that that is a very important suit. If the Court decided the merits of the oase a very important precedent will result."' Thereupon, Mr. Breitenstein was called upon to present a letter whioh had been submitted by Thomas J. Warren, Attorney at Fort Collins; in regard to invasion of prior rights in Wyoming of Diana V. Rice Toothaker on Shell Creek and Dry Creek in District No. 48. Mr. Brettenstein read the letter and stated: "After that letter was received by the State Engineer he referred the matter to the Attorney General and the Attorney General advised him to hold no hearing saying-that Colorado water officials only administer Colorado deorees. The Attorney General pointed out the provision of the Act creating the Colorado Water Conservation Board and said it should be referred to them. Mr. 'Warren wrote Judge Stone on October 29th and'attached the letter. "Now' it seems to me that you do have an interstate oontroversy here. You have water users on both sides of the state line. While there are only a total of four water users, it is my recommendation that the Board should authorize the Director or someone else to take the matter up with the State of Wyoming and the affeoted water user.. and see what, if anything, can be worked out. It is a minor matter but I think it is the duty of the Board to take care of small matters as well as the big ones."