upr000204 205

V 1 Mr. E.E. Bennett--2 I am therefore of the opinion that the Railroad Company may claim that its permit to use 2.5 CFS from Well No. 1 (which permit specifically designates Rail­road purposes) is a vested right acquired prior to March 25* 1939* and consequently capable of being trans­ferred to a new point of diversion at the shop well. You will recall that in my letter to you of January 3* 1952, I stated that in order to effect a transfer of an existing right to another location, there must 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 based this statement on information given by Mr. Jamison who stated his belief that this was a ruling of the Attorney General. It seems to me however, that the ruling of the Attorney General cannot apply to a vested right, and that the Company would have the right to take 2.5 CPS from its shop well in the event such well is capable of producing this quantity. It also seems to me that If such a trans­fer is effected and said quantity of water is not developed, or if developed, not used, for a period of five successive years, there would be a forfeiture under section 7993.l8a to the extent of such non-use. In summary, the committee concluded to determine how much water can be developed at the shop well and to transfer all of the companies* water right to the shop well even though the water developed does not equal the amount transferred. In 7iew of the foregoing, I believe this may be accomplished, notwithstanding that a lesser amount of water is actually available. Sincerely Calvin M. Cory Enc