Laserfiche WebLink
their cemetery. That is ay understanding of the <br /> 1982 agreement." <br /> Williamson related that both he and Mr . Brock had <br /> done an extensive amount of research including <br /> minutes from the August and September 1982 Council <br /> Meetings where this draft agreement was under <br /> consideration. There wee discussion about who <br /> should own the water. At the time the City <br /> already owned the shares. There was discussios <br /> about use at either or both of the cemeteries, but <br /> there was nothing on the record that would change <br /> Williamson's interpretation of the final document. <br /> Mayor Meier referenced the section of the open <br /> space agreement dealing with the water rights. If <br /> the water rights were already owned by the City, <br /> why was this 'water rights' portion of the <br /> agreement even addressed in the document?" <br /> Williamson: "The open space agreement was <br /> executed September 1982. At that tie*, the City <br /> had not even filed the water rights transfer <br /> proceeding that I referred to earlier. And <br /> normally it takes about 2-3 years to complete that <br /> kind of proceeding. Even at that point in time, <br /> it should have been known that there would be a <br /> period of years, relatively short, when the water <br /> owned by the City would not be available to it <br /> (City) . And as you know, Mr. Mayor , it has been <br /> the City policy for many many years, that when the <br /> City buys water rights from agricultural users, it <br /> is almost routinely the City' s practice to offer a <br /> lease back kind of arrangement to the sellers to <br /> keep the water right usage active until we can <br /> complete the water court proceedings and <br /> incorporate it into our proceedings. I read the <br /> provisions of the September 1982 Open Space <br /> Agreement as being simply that . So long as they <br /> are unavailable to the City for legal reasons, <br /> they would be made available to the land owner." <br /> Williamson: "My understanding of the Aqusrious <br /> proposal as a physical matter, is somewhat <br /> preliminary. They do not anticipate flood <br /> irrigating the cemetery that they are developing <br /> as you would an agricultural field. Instead what <br /> they have proposed to do, is to eabark on a well <br /> drilling program up on the hill to determine the <br /> physical feasibility of establishing a well <br /> battery to irrigate that cemetery. If they did <br /> that , it wautd be necessary for them to dedicate <br /> water rights because the water up there would be <br /> tributary and they would have to go through a plan <br /> for augmentation proceedings in the water court <br /> 8 <br />