Laserfiche WebLink
<br />001482 <br /> <br />the h'a:tCJ: Cour.t ,will probClbly allow only consumpti.ve use and far:-m <br /> <br />losses for ch<1nge in poin"c of diversion and use to avoid damage to <br /> <br />irriga'coJ:'s below who have had use of the re'\:urn ;'low in the past. <br /> <br />Not the least factor of all is the dollc,r signs the vlater right <br /> <br />0\1nerS 'g"ot in their eyos when they are approached by the State <br /> <br />with offers to purchase. <br /> <br />For example, the State tried to purchase the water right <br /> <br />of the Las lmimas D:l'\:ch Company. I"l: was ideally located because <br /> <br />it was the last ditch to diver'c from the river befOJ~e i,t reaches <br /> <br />the reservoir. The right \vas 38 cfs. There were 1,900 shares <br /> <br />repJ:esenting 1,900 irriga'ted acres. J::r: 38 cfs were diverted <br /> <br />con'tinuously for a year, it would amoun"t to about 27,000 acre- <br /> <br />feet or just: abou'\: enoug"h for 'chree complete permanent pools, but: <br /> <br />the Court would probably only allow transfer of about 2.25 acre- <br /> <br />feet per irrigated acre Oj~ about 4,300 acre-feet per year to be <br /> <br />credi,ted to t:he permanent: pool. The State made wha'c it thought <br /> <br />a generous offer, based on the fair market value, of $550 per <br /> <br />shel:ee, bu'C the fanners wanted $750. 'I'he \va'cer rig"h'c was sold for <br /> <br />$7:>0 per share to another irriga"cion company located" far ups"cream. <br /> <br />It is the opinion of the author tha'c the Viater Court \1ill allow <br /> <br />transfer of only a small portion of the 38 cfs tot:he new point <br /> <br />of diversion because of damage 'to rights in be'tween. <br /> <br />'~-'.. <br /> <br />-12- <br /> <br />,,~, ..". <br />