Laserfiche WebLink
<br />( <br /> <br />that it amounted to an abandonment <br /> <br />of the original project. <br />4) The l'Ia ter Cou r t noted tha tin the <br /> <br />case of conditional water rights, <br /> <br />the amount to be diverted at the <br /> <br />original point of diversion was <br />inherently uncertain. Because of <br /> <br />design changes or permitting <br /> <br />requirements, a constructed water <br /> <br />project may divert less than the <br /> <br />conditionally decreed amount, and <br /> <br />it is possible that a project will <br /> <br />(. <br />< <br /> <br />never be built at all. The Water <br /> <br />Court found, however, that this <br /> <br />inherent uncertainty did not <br /> <br />preclude the change altogether or a <br /> <br />showing of non-injury. Judgement <br /> <br />and Decree inCase No.. 2686 at 16- <br /> <br />19. <br /> <br />5) Citing Twin Lakes and further <br /> <br />noting that the permitting <br /> <br />requirements that would have <br />, <br /> <br />limited diversions by the original <br /> <br />project would ~ apply at the new <br /> <br />point of diversion far downstream, <br /> <br />( ~ <br /> <br />the Court concluded that the <br /> <br />17 <br />