upr000204 277

Mr* K8. Bennett #2* In addition to Section 7987 eitod at page 3 of your letter, I on of tho opinion that the Act of March 25th, 1939« aa amended in 194-7 and 1949 (Secs* 7793* 10- 7793*24) should also ha considered* The State Engineer's representative in this area inform* raa that most water in tha Lea Vegas VaHay area is "’artesian* water instead of percolating water* Be further inform* me that tha Act of 1939* aa amended, has been made effective in this area through tha petition mentioned in See. % of tha Act (See* 7793*13 VCL Supp., 1931-1941). An artesian wall is dtfined in said Act as one which taps an "aquifier underlying an impervious mater­ial in which tha static water level in said wall atends a- beve where it is first encountered in said aeguifiar." This definition would make the well in the railroad shop grounds at las Vegas an “artesian wall*, since the water in said well stands at a higher level than the point where it is first en­countered, Its development would therefore come under the Act of 1939, as amended* That Aet would require a permit to appropriate water in accordance with the provisions of the general water law relating to the appropriation of public water* before performing any work in connection with the bor­ing or sinking of said well (Section 7793*15)* The tame would be true with respect to sinking e new well in the shop grounds or elsewhere on railroad property* X believe that a permit for developing the exitting well or for sinking a new well in e suitable loca­tion would be granted by the state engineer* When sufficient water it developed for railroad purposes a permit to appro­priate euoh water could then be obtained, followed by proof of beneficial use, in accordance with the general water', lew* Shis would apply to the existing well or to e new well, which­ever Is followed* 4 It would be possible to transfer the Railroad Companies' water right from the present place of appropriation to e new place of appropriation, such aa tha axisting well in the shop grounds or a new well to be developed at a suitable location* However, there mutt be water available at the new point of diversion in sufficient quantity to equal the water right which is transferred to such point of diversion* I am informed that for many years the State Engineer automatically approved applications to transfer a water right from ame point of diversion to another, without regard to the quantity of water developed at the new point of diversion, However, ap­proximately two years ego the attorney general ruled that the water developed at the new pointof diversion must be equal to