upr000105 265

Nr* $*!• Bennett— S \ t am therefore ©f the eplBlen t h a t the Railroad Conpany w r e U l a that tip permit t© us© 2.3 CPS fr©» w # U s©, I {©hieh permit specifically designate® Ball-read purposes) is a vested right acquired prior fee March if* 1939, and engeqtjently capable of feeing trans- U" f erred t© a tie* print ©f divers lea at the shop well. Ye® will recall that in my letter t© yew ©f January 3, Iff®, 1 stated that in order to effect a .transfer ©f an existing right to another location, there must he water avallahle at the new point of diversion in sufficient quantity to equal the water right which is transferred to such point of diversion, I haaed this statenent ©n information given hy Mr, Jamison eh© stated hie belief that this m s a ruling of the Attorney general, it seen* t© me however, that the ruling c-f the Attorney general cannot apply t a vested right, and that the Company would have the right to take 2.5 CPS free Its shop well in the event such well is capable.of producing this quantity, ft also seen© to ate that if such a trans­fer is effected and said quantity of water Is not developed ©r if developed, not used, for a period of five successive years, there would fee a forfeiture under fee section 7993,1% the extent of such non-use* In summary, the committee concluded to determine how much water can fee developed at the shop well and to transfer all of the companies* water right to the shop well even though the water developed does net equal the amount transferred'. in flew of the foregoing, I believe this nay fee acccmpllehed, notwithstanding that a lesser amount of water is actually available. Sincerely Calvin M, Cory Ine