Laserfiche WebLink
<br />B. A somewhat different situatio~ exists where a ditch <br />has historically intercepted surface runoff from a <br />small area. The question exists whether the ditch is <br />required to accept the same flow as historically or <br />whether it may refuse all runoff from a developed area <br />above it. <br /> <br />The legal opinion furnished by Mr. Moses then became the basis for <br />selection of alternative plans as they related to the various cate- <br />gories of reservoirs and irrigation ditches e~countered. The <br />necessity for preparing the legal opinion prior to development <br />of the alternative plan was that the legal parameters surrounding <br />the use of privately owned reservoirs are largely unknown or <br />suppositions. Not only was it unreasonable to propose certain <br />improvements which might be legally inadviseable, but it would be <br />impossible for review agencies to select an alternative until the <br />legal ramifications were well documented. <br /> <br />Another aspect of the legal work was to define in clear terms for <br />the involved entities the present circumstances surrounding exist- <br />ing reservoirs. Regardless of implementation of any alternative, <br />legal implications of the numerous reservoirs and irrigation <br />ditches should be recognized by the jurisdictions. <br /> <br />Mr. Moses' entire legal opinion is reproduced as Appendix A. <br /> <br />-bl,- <br />