Laserfiche WebLink
<br />.. '01)0521 <br />, ~' j'G,J,'1 D. Vanderhoof <br />-," <f'J<~"'XW\(1;: <br />.. . ~ .Co,,:crnor <br />,. ....?\..llj <br /> <br />, <br />, " <br /> <br /> <br />;tt <br /> <br />C. J. KUIPER <br />Sio.to Enqinoor <br /> <br />\ <br /> <br />DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES <br />Department of Natura I Resources I <br />300 Columbine Bui Iding \ <br />1845 Sherman Street <br />Denver, Colorado 80203 <br /> <br />December 4, 1973 <br /> <br />TO WnOM IT MAY CONCERN <br /> <br />FROM: <br /> <br />C. J. Kuiper, State Enginee <br /> <br /> <br />Luis Valley <br /> <br />SUBJECT: <br /> <br />Administrative Problems in th <br /> <br />Recent legislation, the U, S, Supreme Court Stipulation dated <br />April 17, 1968 on the Texas and New Mexico lawsuit, the requirement for rigid <br />administration to meet compact commitments, studies on the rel~ti.onship of <br />ground and surface water, and complaints by various diverse interests in the <br />valley have made it imperative that a complete analysis be made of administrative <br />procedures in the San Luis Valley, Disagreements among many water user <br />entities are manifested by protests to the Governor, to the State Engineer and <br />to the Director of the Departrr.ent of Natural Resources on past administration <br />of the waters of the San Luis Valley. It is the purpose of this memorandurr. <br />to outline the many issues, present both sides of the controver3Y as related <br />by adversary parties, and the State Engineer's position. A further purpose of <br />this memorandum is to encourage the many diverse interests to assist the State <br />Engineer in resolving these differences through negotiaticm and arbitration <br />without resorting to litigation. There is a strong feeling among administrative <br />water officials, major water user groups and attorneys that some of these issues <br />could be resolved with a memorandum of this type and/or adminis trative hear- <br />ings, The advantages of administrative hearing, prefaced by the assertion <br />that an appea.l to Court would not preclude a de novo trial, rather than Court <br />litigation are many: <br /> <br />1. The expense to the water user entity is much less. <br /> <br />2. The State Engineer's office could make full disclosl're of <br />all of the engineering studies and facts for the benefit of the water <br />user groups who can ill afford to duplicate these type studies and <br />compila tion of da ta . <br /> <br />3. The St'ltE Engineer could ascertain all of the facts and <br />contentions which each water llser entIty could present in the testimony. <br />