Laserfiche WebLink
<br />nO~b'5!r . <br /> <br />surface irrigation losses be recognized and protected consistent witb the state policy to <br />encourage conjunctive use of tributary groundwater and surface supplies? <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />C. Legal Issues <br /> <br />Does strict enforcement of the "no injury" rule, as currently applied, prevent creative <br />and more efficient use of our water supplies by focusing too narrowly on maintenance of the <br />status quo, and do plans for augmentation provide adequate relief to rigid application of the <br />"no injury" rule? <br /> <br />Does or should a water right include the right to transfer changes in historical <br />diversions to new uses while retaining the original priority date, subject only to the "no <br />injury" rule? Would such an entitlement reward previously wasteful or inefficient practices <br />and give credence to the disputed maxim "use it or lose it"? Would retention of the original <br />priority date for saved water be speculative in that it allows a priority date that predates <br />actual formation of the intent to appropriate? <br /> <br />Do upstream junior water right holders have any reliance claims to saved water? Such <br />claim would be based on their expectations, formed at the time of their appropriation, that <br />. inefficient, but senior downstream practices would someday be improved, thereby reducing <br />the senior calls on their rights. Is such an expectation reasonable and justified, and is it <br />protected by the "no injury" rule? Even if there was no such express expectation on the' <br />junior's part at the time of appropriation, does the prior appropriation system fairly imply <br />a gradual attrition of senior rights through abandonment which eventually leads to a better <br />water supply for juniors? <br /> <br />How should stateline delivery obligations created by compact or court decree be <br />accounted for when evaluating a saved water proposal? Upstream juniors, potentially <br />subject to a compact call, may assert that return flows which currently flow out of state <br />benefit tbem and allow additional upstream depletions. Do we know enough about how and <br /> <br />32 <br />