PROJ00152

• Contract/PO #: C153620
• Contractor Name: Clinton Ditch and Reservoir Company
• Contract Type: Loan
• Water District: 36
• County: Summit
• Bill Number: SB 90-87
• Loan Projects - Doc Type: Feasibility Study

.. I

9

any injurious effect. If the applicant demonstrates an

absence of injury, the referee or judge must approve the

change" (MacDonnell, 1990, p. 4). Instead the difficult.

hassle of changing priority dates, Colorado adopted a

compromise of transferring the "historic consumptive use"

(Meyers, Tarlock, Corbridge, Getches, 1988, p. 352). "The

purchaser of a water right is entitled to use that water

right in the same manner and with the same priority as the

original user did. If the purchaser desires to change any of

the elements of the right such as the point of diversion or

the type, time, or place of use, he will have to go through a

formal change of water right proceeding" (MacDonnell, 1990,

p. 4). State policy is mainly concerned with "third party

effects" because the participants "must be satisfied with the

negotiations for a transfer to be consummated" (National

Research Council, 1992, p. 38). The National Research

Council (1992) concluded that:

Instead, public policies must be concerned with the

interests of so-called third parties, that is, those who

stand to be affected by the transfer but are not

^
--.-

represented in the negotiations and lack control over or

input into the processes by which transfer proposals are

evaluated and implemented (p. 38).

The no-injury rule effectively reduces the available yield

from a transfer and increases the costs of acquis'ition.

A junior user may request an out of priority diversion

from a downstream senior. If the senior gives permission,