►
From YouTube: House Agriculture, State and Public Lands & Water Resources Meeting, February 17, 2022
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
B
Okay,
thank
you
carol
committee
will
call
this
meeting
to
order
roll
call.
B
All
present,
okay,
the
first
bill
for
our
consideration,
is
house
bill
at
state
land
leases.
We
started
working
the
bill
last
meeting
and
since
then
there's
a
bunch
of
work.
That's
been
done
by
the
office
of
state
lands
as
well
as
the
stock
growers,
and
we
have
several
amended
versions,
and
I
I
think
the
best
thing
for
us
right
now
would
be
to
just
bring
up
state
lands
and
mr
mcgagne,
if
you'd
come
up
as
well,
you
had
a
an
amended
version,
we'll
go
through
that.
B
Some
some
move
by
who
orf
as
well
as
clausen
seconded
close
enough
all
right,
it's
off
the
table
and
and
we're
ready
for
discussion
and,
as
I
think
I'll
just
have
you
go
ahead
and
go
through
your
amendments.
We
have
them
before
us
and,
I
believe,
are
these
amendments
suggested
amendments
online.
They
probably
aren't.
Are
they
okay?
Well,
they
will
be
if,
if
any
of
them
get
moved
or
the
bill
gets
passed,
so
go.
C
D
C
Appreciate
the
help
of
the
stock
growers
association
in
crafting
these
quickly,
as
we
mentioned
in
the
last
meeting,
we
had
some
concerns
about
double
qualifiers
when
leasing
lands
or
vacant
lands
that
may
be
over
and
above
the
core
requirements
to
just
hold
a
grazing
agricultural
lease,
and
the
first
page
that
you
have
in
front
of
you.
The
very
colorful
page
is
an
attempt
to
clean
that
situation
up.
C
It
removes
a
lot
of
qualifications
that
are
already
within
36.5
101
and
it
places
something
that
the
stock
growers
discussed
at
the
last
meeting
about
being,
basically
in
good
standing
with
the
board,
but
further
clarifying
that
to
those
who
have
not
been
found
to
have
significantly
violated
any
laws
or
regulations
related
to
state
lands.
So,
as
you
can
see,
we
just
removed
those
double
qualifiers,
as
we
had
felt
that
they
were
double
inserted.
The
stock
growers
comment
and
then
provided
the
clean
version
at
the
bottom
of
that
page.
C
To
really
just
give
you
a
clean
view
of,
we
are
very
specifically
talking
about
vacant
leases.
We
are
very
specifically
talking
about
how
you
can
be
qualified
to
hold
a
lease
and
that
there
are
a
couple
other
qualifiers
that
are
separate
from
those
core
qualifiers
within
36.5
101
and
those
are
to
have
actual
unnecessary
use
of
the
land
and
to
pay
an
annual
rental
of
not
less
than
fair
market
rental
for
a
period
of
ten
years
and
then
to
insert
the
stock
growers
comment.
As
I
mentioned.
C
Mr
chairman,
that's
the
first
amendment,
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions
you
would
have
for
that.
Okay,.
B
Committee,
so
if
you
look
at
the
bottom
of
the
colorful
page,
it'll
have
the
clean
version
and
it'll
kind
of
cut
through
all
of
the
crossing
out
and
additional
languages.
Everybody
had
a
chance
to
read
that.
Okay,
no
questions,
okay,
so
that
in
my
mind,
if
we,
if
we
move
the
bill
and
continue
on
that'll,
be
one
this
this
page
with
those
amendments
will
probably
be
one
one-man
amendment
if
the
committee's
okay,
with
that
it'll
be
easier
today,
we'll
deal
with
them
as
we
go
along
so
okay,
mr
crowder,
continue
on.
C
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
The
second
amendment
that
we
would
like
to
propose
relates
to
the
process
if
the
board
determines
to
use
preference
in
leasing
vacant
lands-
and
this
is
a
point
where
the
stock
growers
and
the
state
land
office
do
deviate.
I'll
speak
to
our
proposed
amendment,
and
I
think
mr
mcgagne
can
speak
to
his
likely.
C
But
from
our
standpoint,
as
we
mentioned
in
the
last
meeting,
we
have
rules
that
were
approved
by
the
board
of
land
commissioners,
so
that
we
could
move
forward
with
leasing
vacant
lands
and
in
those
rules
we
lay
out
a
very
specific
process,
and
what
I've
attempted
to
do
here
is
provide
that
process
as
an
amendment
to
you.
So
really
what
it
does
is
removes
the
process
that
was
in
the
proposed
bill
and
inserts.
C
What
we
currently
have
in
our
approved
board,
approved
rules,
meaning
that
if
one
or
more
qualified
applicant
is
eligible
for
the
preference-
and
there
are
more
than
one
bid
received
in
a
conflict
or
in
a
vacant
land
leasing
scenario,
then
we
would
go
to
a
second
bidding
situation
and
and
we'll
talk
about
the
second
bidding
situation
here.
In
a
minute,
but
it's
basically
of
any
form
that
the
director
determines
appropriate
based
on
the
attributes,
a
specific
parcel
or
situation
presents,
but
it
it
allows
it.
C
B
C
Yes
and
mr
chairman,
to
fully
clarify
our
changes,
have
osli
desired
amendments
at
the
top.
It
has
the
green
and
what
we
provided
for
the
stock
growers
on
behalf
of
the
portion.
That's
in
red.
B
B
You
can
go
ahead
when
you're
ready
to
defend
your
version
of
it,
which
we've.
E
Jim
mcgagg,
with
the
army,
stalkers
association,
as
as
mr
crowder
pointed
out.
That's
the
one
area
where
I
believe
we
deviate
our
and,
and
I
I
respect
that
the
language
he's
provided
conforms
to
their
rules,
but
I
would
say
that
we
need
to
conform
to
the
legislative
intent.
The
statute
and
amend
the
rules
as
necessary,
and
the
the
preference
for
adjacent
landowner
to
me
means
that
as
you
go
through
the
process,
if,
if
the,
if
I.
E
E
But
then
in
the
second
round
the
preference
holder
just
gets
to
submit
a
bid
and
if
it
doesn't
happen
to
be
the
high
bid,
they're
not
given
the
chance
to
come
back
and
match
that
high
bid
and
to
me
that
defeats
the
the
intent,
the
legislative
intent
and
the
way
weave
has
always
understood
that
the
preference
applies
that,
whether
whether
you
go
through
one
step
for
two
or
three
big
sets
of
bids,
a
preference
holder
versus
a
non-preference
holder
always
has
that
final
opportunity
to
match
the
high
bid
and
acquire
the
lease
and
that's
a
feature
that
we
seek
to
protect.
E
C
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
This
is
the
final
amendment
that
we've
offered,
and
it
goes
back
to
the
discussion
that
we
had
in
the
previous
meeting,
where
we
were
seeking
some
discretion
and
some
flexibility
when
we
noticed
these
parcels
of
vacant
land
to
adjoining
landowners
and
to
determine
to
drive
the
highest
bid
possible
out
of
these
parcels.
C
It's
simply
changing
the
the
direction
to
of
notice
from
by
mail
to
directly
to
each
adjoining
landowner,
private
landowner,
and
we
anticipate
that
could
be
by
mail
by
email,
by
phone
call
or
by
knocking
on
the
door,
and
then
we
further
define
how
we
would
identify
those
parties
as
those
that
are
currently
recorded
with
the
county
assessor's
office,
so
that
we
have
a
very
clear
set
of
data
that
we're
pulling
from
and
we're
not
hopefully
missing.
Anybody
at
that
point,
mr
chairman,
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
B
E
B
D
B
A
B
It
is,
and
I
did
not
give
him
an
opportunity
to
talk
about
what
changes
there
would
be
between
the
land
office
and
and
yours,
mr
chairman,
on
which,
on
which,
so
we
portion
is
that
it
would
be
page
two
lines.
One
through
nineteen.
E
Okay,
miss
john.
Thank
you.
I
believe
we
both
have
the
exact
same
language
on
that.
The
only
difference
that
I
was
fine
with
the
language
presented
by
the
state
land
office.
I
moved
the
language
I
gave
you
the
other
day
about
significant
violations,
moved
it
up
to
that
section
because,
as
it's
currently
would
be,
it
would
only
apply
to
people
with
a
preference
and
the
requirements
to
not
have
had
a
significant
violation
should
apply
equally
to
all
applicants,
not
just
those
who
happen
to
have
a
preference.
E
So
I
moved
that
language
and,
as
mr
crowder
has
incorporated
it
up
to
line
two,
I
might
mention
one
other
item
there
that
we
are
in
agreement
on,
but
we
we
both
were
comfortable
with
deleting
the
language,
the
requirement
that
you
be
a
citizen
of
the
state
of
wyoming
or
authorized
to
do
business
in
wyoming,
and
my
reasoning
on
that
is.
I
know
we
have
landowners
across
who
cross
the
border,
who
may
have
a
wrench
in
montana,
with
the
ranch
headquarters,
but
they
have
significant
ranching
in
wyoming.
Have
state
leases
there?
E
They
may
be
residents
in
montana
if
they
have
a
legal
structure.
Corporation
or
otherwise,
I
may
be
incorporated
in
montana,
not
in
wyoming,
and
I
was
concerned
that
if
that
was
kept
in
there
as
an
absolute
requirement,
we
could,
in
effect
by
enforcing
it
negatively
impacts
some
ranching
operations
that
are
important
to
our
state.
F
F
So
from
that
standpoint
I
think
it
totally
makes
sense,
but
you
know
what,
if
it's
someone
who
you
know
owns
land
in
wyoming
or
montana
or
wherever
that
may
be,
but
doesn't
actually
you
know,
let's
say
these
their
residences
wherever
florida,
texas
in
those
situations,
is
there
a
way
to
thread
the
needle
or
we
can
really
give
preference
to
these
people
who
are
here
year
round
who
are
really
investing
their
blood,
sweat
and
tears
and
kind
of
thread
that
needle
and
kind
of
differentiate
between
those
two
types
of
groups
or
is
that
would
that
be
too
difficult?.
E
The
thing
that
discouraged
me
is
now
you
have
two
purposes:
you
have
a
preference
for
joining
land
and
you
have
a
preference
for
living
in
the
state
of
wyoming
and
it's
been
difficult
enough
to
sort
out
how
you
handle
this
one
preference.
When
I
thought
of
the
challenge
of
having
two
preferences
and
competing
against
each
other,
and
if
I
have
one
and
you
have
the
other,
you
would
prioritize
one
of
them.
E
It
just
seemed
that
while
there's
some
some
opportunity
for
what
you
say,
I
think
that's
partially
directed
addressed
by
the
fact
that
this
would
require
that
they
have
a
necessary
use
for
the
land.
So
they
are
running
a
ranching
operation.
That's
using
the
land
they're
not
just
holding
it,
because
it's
because
they
want
a
whole
state
trust
lands.
G
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
thought
tuesday,
we
discussed
the
fencing
issue
and
I
don't
see
an
amendment
for
that
in
here
or
or
was
that
taking
care
of
tuesday
who's
who
to
decide
on
who's
going
to
pay
for
the
fencing
on
this,
the
school
section,
that's
in
the
middle
of
somebody
else
or
besides
somebody
else.
G
C
B
Yeah,
okay,
thank
you
yeah,
so
there
there's
case
law
that
usually
sets
up
how
the
fencing
will
be
done,
and
I
think
state
lands
will
abide
by
by
that
law.
So
all
right
so
on
the
we're,
not
gonna,
we're
not
gonna
quite
be
ready
to
work.
The
bill
are
you
done
sharing?
B
There
was
a
a
minor
difference
in
the
first
amendment
that
we
would
have
and
then
a
bigger
one
in
the
middle
of
this
bill
that
we'll
discuss
as
a
committee
and
then
you
were
in
pretty
much
full
agreement
on
the
on
the
tail
tail
end
of
it.
So
on
page
four,
so
I
I
think
we'll
open
things
up
to
public
comment
right
now
and
I
stand
by
in
case,
we
have
any
more
questions
from
you.
Thank
you.
D
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
good
morning
my
name
is
margaret
herman
and
at
this
moment
I'm
wearing
the
hat
for
a
group
called
advocates
for
school
trust
land.
So
I'm
just
going
to
zero
in
on
the
trust
issue
involved
here,
as
I
see
it
and
just
sort
of
to
lift
the
whole
discussion
up
to
ten
thousand
feet.
D
Just
to
I
ask:
are
you
all
to
be
very
mindful
that
the
trust
lands
exist
were
created
at
statehood
for
the
purpose
of
supporting
public
education,
and
so
that
put
you
in
the
job
of
trustees
to
take
care
of
the
land
to
make
sure
it's
producing
revenue
to
the
best
possible
ability
for
the
for
the
school
children
of
the
state?
And
now-
and
I
guess
it
was
about
maybe
20
years
ago-
the
wyoming
supreme
court
said
yes,
you
can.
D
You
can
well
in
backing
up
one
moral
proviso
is
that
we
all
know
that
competition
produces
the
highest
highest
prices.
Highest
income
always
has
that's
why
the
our
our
state
constitution
says
that
these
lands
have
to
be
disposed
of
if
you
dispose
them
at
a
public
auction,
because
recognizing
that's,
what
produces
the
most
competition?
D
The
highest
bids,
the
wyoming
supreme
court,
has
said
that
we
can
mitigate
that
for
current
lesses,
that
we
can
give
them
a
preferential
right
that,
admittedly
depresses
competition
and
decreases
the
bids,
because
there's
a
long-term
good
that
comes
out
of
that
a
ranch
has
at
least
a
section
school
section
for
for
generations,
it's
vital
to
their
operation.
They
said,
that's
fine,
you
can
do
that,
and
but
I
think
this
is
vacant
lands.
I
think
this
is
a
different
issue
and
that
I
would
support,
I
guess
getting
to
the
point.
D
I
would
support
the
office
of
state
lands
and
investments
position.
The
kind
of
preference
that
others
are
supporting,
including
the
stock
roars,
creates
such
a
strong
preference
that
again
it
goes
into
that
area
of
depressing
the
competition
for
this,
because
it's
a
it's,
it's
really
a
preference,
well,
the
one
that
the
the
osli
is
their
their
practice
is
that
it
you
always
guarantee
to
seat
at
the
table.
D
You
are
guaranteed
to
be,
if
you
don't,
if
you're,
not
the
high
bid
or
in
the
first
round,
you
get
to
do
the
second
round,
so
that's
the
preference
that
you
always
have
a
seat
at
the
table
able
to
compete,
and
that
to
me
is
the
preference
that
has
been
used
for
years.
It
works,
it
is
vacant
land.
So
I
think
it's
a
much
different
kind
of
a
standard
than
the
you
know.
Renewing
a
lease
which
again
the
courts
have
told
us.
D
That's,
okay,
you
can
forego
income
because
there's
a
greater
good,
and
I
think
here
I
would
just
urge
you
to
use
the
the
rules,
the
practice
and
and
put
in
state
law
what
the
more
deland
commissioners
and
osli
have
been
using.
I
think
it
does
give
a
preference
to
adjacent
landowners.
It
doesn't
give
them.
It
doesn't
do
it
to
the
point
of
really
compromising
the
revenue
that
can
be
made
from
these
from
these
sections.
So
I
would.
D
I
would
urge
you
to
use
the
osli's
version
of
the
preference
there
are
pieces
on
this
in
this
bill.
They're
really
good,
especially
distinguishing
between
preference
and
preferential
right,
which
gets
used
interchangeably
and
it's
very
confusing.
So
that's
and
that's
basically,
you
know
the
alternative.
I
guess
the
real
purist
would
say:
do
we
really
need
this
preference
at
all?
But
I
know
that's.
D
B
Committee,
any
questions,
okay,
I
I
just
wanted
to
say
a
couple
of
things,
so
we
talked
at
the
last
meeting
about
optimizing.
The
the
bid
process,
not
necessarily
getting
the
highest
dollar
amount
as
being
the
the
best
bid,
often
times
the
land
only
fits
into
into
one
area.
It
does.
B
We
have
a
case,
I
believe,
in
the
state
where
there's
a
state
of
state
land
has
been
given
to
the
highest
bidder
and
he's
isolated
out
in
the
middle
of
a
ranch
and
has
no
access
to
this
state
land.
B
It
confuses
what
he
can
do.
I
last
I
heard
he
was
maybe
needed
a
helicopter
to
get
into
it.
So
that's
part
of
the
reason
we
set
up.
We
set
this
up.
The
other
part
is
we
have
70
to
100
vacant
land
parcels
that
we
need
to
settle
and
if
we
don't
get
this
law
fixed
and
straightened
out,
we'll
we'll
have
the
loss
of
income
as
we
speak,
we're
losing
income
on
state
lands
that
will
help
our
schools
so
so
there
there
will
be
some
compromising
on
the
bill.
B
I'm
sure
we
want
it
to
conform
as
much
as
as
we
can
to
what
we
actually
do
with
the
state.
Other
state
lands
oftentimes
a
vacant
land.
The
only
way
you
can
deal
with
it
is
is
using
using
preference
and
and
adjoining
land
owners
to
be
able
to
get
optimum
use
out
of
that.
That
parcel
so.
D
So
yeah,
mr.
D
So
and
that
that
language
about
optimizing
and
maximizing
the
distinction
between
the
two
I
think
arose
in
that
regal
versus
anderson
case
for
the
wyoming
supreme
court,
and
I
see
a
real
sort
of
organic
difference
between
preserving
a
ranch
and
existing
leases
and
the
vacant
lease,
and
I
think
that
the
preference
to
the
adjacent
landowner
is
something
that
the
legislature
and
osli
and
the
borderland
commissioners
all
recognize,
and
I
think
that,
to
the
extent
that
this
bill
or
the
the
version
from
osli
and
the
vert
and
the
rules
they
do
now,
I
think
achieves
that.
D
I
you
know,
I
think,
there's
only
so
much
if
you're,
if
you're
counting
on
the
market
to
create
the
competition
that
we
all
know
gets
the
best
price.
I
think,
to
some
extent
you
can't
control
all
the
variables
and-
and
you
know
this
is
a
case
where
that
you
you've,
given
the
adjacent
landowner,
is
seated
at
the
table
at
every
single
round,
which
is
what
we've
been
doing
and
I
think
works,
and
it's
as
far
as
the
backlog.
That's
kind
of
that.
I
think
mr
crowder
explained
on
tuesday.
D
That
was
a
function
of
you
know,
lack
of
staff.
That's
unusual.
I
think
I
think
in
most
years
it's
much
much
less
than
that.
Maybe
well,
I'm
not
sure
you
know
a
dozen
or
two
max.
So
this
is
really
unusual
situation
and
there
is
a
backlog,
and
that
is
an
issue,
and
I
think
that
the
sooner
and
I
agree
sooner,
we
can
get
this
settled
the
better,
but
I
think
I
guess
what
I'm
saying
is
the
preference
that
has
been
in
practice
as
for
years
and
maybe
needs
codifying.
D
I
think
I
think
does
give
the
preference,
but
I
think
it
doesn't
do
it
to
the
point
where
it
you
know,
puts
a
thumb
on
the
scale,
so
the
speaker
stacks
the
deck
which
again
existing
renewal.
We've
all
agreed.
Yes,
you
know
we'll
forego
income
on
that
because
there's
a
greater
good,
but
I
don't
see
that
applying
in
this
for
vacant
leases
and
so
there's
a
there's,
a
preference,
but
it's
not
a
guarantee.
B
Okay,
we
will
have
more
than
likely
have
a
discussion
about
a
live
auction,
since
it
was
in
the
original
bill
and
it's
and
then
it's
eliminated
by
both
stock
growers,
as
well
as
the
land
office.
I'm
guessing
that
we
will
what's
your
opinion
on
that
as
a
as
a
final
way
of
trying
to
optimize,
though.
D
Mr
chairman,
I
I
guess
I
I,
if
that's.
D
That,
if
that's
agreed
on
is
maybe
one
way.
I
don't
think
I
want
to
make
it
mandatory,
but
maybe
on
in
on
occasion.
If,
if
the
borderland
commissioner
says
that's
what
we
want
to
do,
then
that
could
be
on
the
on
the
table,
but
I
think
sealed
bids
which
is
different
from
simply
matching
a
bit
which
again
we
do
for
renewed
leasing,
and
we
all
agree
once
again
that
you
do
forego
income
that
way.
B
B
I
Mr
chairman,
thank
you,
I
think
they're
on
page
two
line,
one
through
eighteen.
I
think
they're
in
agreement
with
what
was
proposed
by
osli,
the
colorful
sheep,
and
I
would
make
that
a
motion
to
use
that.
B
B
No
applicants
shall
be
qualified
to
lease
vacant
lands
unless
that
applicant
is
qualified
under
the
provisions
of
ws
36510
101
has
actual
unnecessary
use
of
the
land
offers
to
pay
an
annual
rental
at
not
less
than
the
fair
market.
Value
is
determined
by
the
economic
analysis
pursuant
to
wyoming
statute,
365
101
b
for
the
similar
for
the
same
or
similar
use
of
the
land
for
a
period
of
10
years
and
who
have
not
been
found
to
have
significantly
violated
any
laws.
B
E
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
just
a
technical
correction,
because
that
section
refers
to
individual
applicants
and
in
the
provision
that
we
added
at
the
end,
it
says
who
have
not
been
found
appropriately
should
say
who
has
not
been
bound
rather
than
have
so
the
entire
paragraph
is
in
the
singular
okay.
Do
you
have
that
carol.
B
So,
but
I
think
we
am,
I
correct
on
that.
We're
not
really
citizens
of
the
state
of
wyoming,
but.
E
B
B
I
This
amendment
representative
larson,
mr
chairman,
I'm
I'm
in
agreement
with
the
has
and
the
have
that
they
suggested:
okay.
Okay,
yes,
all
right.
B
And
seconds,
okay
with
us
all
right,
we
are
in
agreement
that
that's
some
good
word
crafting
all
those
in
favor
say:
aye
opposed.
Okay.
That
amendment
passes
amendment
number
two
and
I've
got
papers
scattered
all
over
the
place
here,
but
I
believe,
goes
to
page
page
three.
I
B
B
Discussion,
yes,
go
ahead.
Thank.
K
If
I
was
in
that
situation,
I
would
sit
back
because
I
know
in
the
very
end,
I'm
going
to
get
it
no
matter
what
so,
with
with
what
the
office
of
state
lands
has
proposed,
they
have
a
preference.
The
first
go
first
go
around,
but
then,
if
at
that
point
it's
open
to
others
to
have
it
at
least
a
shot
at
getting
that
parcel
of
land
at
market
value.
K
So
I
think
the
preference
is
being
overly
emphasized
with
what's
being
proposed
by
the
stock
growers,
and
I'm
going
to
vote
against
that.
Okay.
L
Mr
chairman,
just
to
speak
to
that
so
a
lot
of
times,
the
forage
value
is
far
less
than
the
cost.
It
would
take
to
not
a
lot
of
times
almost
every
time
that
refense
or
change
the
configurations
on
a
single
school
section,
so
the
preference
actually
long
term
makes
makes
a
lot
of
sense
economically.
It's
not
just
apples
to
apples,
because,
because
of
the
switches
and
other
arrangements
that
have
to
be
done,
when
you
change
leases
in
certain
parcels.
K
Representative
heiner
follow
up
to
that.
I'm
sure
if
someone
is
bidding
on
a
parcel
of
land,
they
do
an
economic
analysis.
They
know
what
it's
going
to
cost
to
get
in
there
and
and
and
operate
that
you
know
they're,
not
they're,
not
just
going
in
blind,
so
they
they
will
know
what
it
become.
K
What
the
cost
would
be-
and
you
know
this-
this
great
nation
is
based
on
capitalism,
competition,
and
this
brings
a
little
bit
of
competition
into
our
state
lands
and
maximizes
the
funds
going
into
our
school
children
to
help
education,
and
that's
it,
the
intent
in
the
constitution
for
these
state
lands.
Thank
you.
B
And
I
don't
see
anyone
else,
so
I'm
gonna
defend
that
this.
This
amendment
does
drive
the
competition
anybody
who's
competing
against
each
other,
for
the
bid.
That
thing
will
be
driven
up
to
what
you
just
spoke
of
what
the
economic
benefits
can
be
to
either
of
the
people
bidding
on
it.
B
You
know,
I'm
not
sure
you
know,
I'm
not
not
just
real
sure
that
I
think
I
think
it
optimizes
the
land
use
is
probably
what
it
does
more
than
anything
else,
but
I
think
it
also
drives
up
and
creates
a
competition,
and
there
aren't
many
times
when
you
get
into
a
bidding
process
on
the
state
lands,
because
they've
our
state
land
board
has
decided
that
that
this
is
the
best
way
to
to
care
for
trust
lands.
B
There
have
been
other
states
that
open
up
the
bidding
every
10
years
and
they
usually
just
end
up
selling
the
land.
It's
such
a
pain
in
the
neck
to
try
to
manage
it.
So
other
states,
one
to
the
east
of
us,
I
know-
doesn't
have
a
whole
lot
of
trust.
Lands
left
to
draw
money
from
for
their
schools,
and
I
don't
want
to
see
wyoming
do
that.
B
We
get
we,
we
optimize
the
use
of
the
land,
the
bid
of
the
land
too.
So
that's
kind
of
my
opinion
of
the
thing
any
any
other
discussion
on
it.
Yes,.
M
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
think
this
discussion
brings
into
question
what
is
the
proper
use
of
the
state
land
and-
and
I
think
that's
the
the
the
main
concern
here
is
if
somebody.
M
N
Go
ahead
represent
wharf,
I
didn't
see
you
yeah.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
I
can
see
the
the
concern,
but
I
I
actually
think
that
we
address
that
the
way
I
read
this
preference
is
given
you
know,
and
that's
ultimately,
what
we're
trying
to
do
is
make
it
a
fair
process.
You
got
two
people
making
a
competitive
bid.
N
It's
actually
on
the
page
that
we
have
it's
labeled,
as
subsection
c
says,
when
two
or
more
applicants
are
eligible
for
the
preference
and
one
or
more
applicant
are
not
eligible
for
the
preference.
Those
applicants
who
are
eligible
for
the
preference
may
elect
to
match
the
highest
bid.
N
If
two
or
more
applicants
who
are
eligible
for
the
preference
elect
to
meet
the
highest
bid,
the
lease
shall
be
awarded
pursuant
to
paragraph
b
of
this,
which
you
go
back
to
b,
and
it
just
says
that
they
are
told
it
goes
back
for
a
final
time.
The
director
says
give
me
a
final
bid
so
to
me
that
that
is
the
opportunity
to
keep
bidding
that
up.
It
comes
down
to.
N
If
the
way
I
read
it,
if,
if
you
are
to
adjoining
land
owners
that
are
bidding
for
that
same
parcel
it,
it
does
go
back
to
where
you
do
get
one
final
bid,
and
that
is
if
you
got
two
guys,
both
have
preference
they.
They
both
will
know
what
the
bid
has
been,
what
the
highest
bid
was.
They
can
either
match
it
or
they
can
increase
it
or
they
can
say
I
don't
want
it.
So
I
think
it's
still
there
I'm
not
worried
about
it.
N
I
think
the
fairness
is
there
and
I
think
it
it
does
allow
that
competition.
It
is
weighted
for
preference,
which
I
mean
I
I
think
it
only
makes
sense.
N
A
lot
of
these
guys
have
done
developments,
they've
done
water
development,
they've
done
fencing,
they've
done
all
these
things,
so
they've
got
a
vested
interest
in
it,
and
I
do
think
that
this
is
designed
to
ensure
that
we
keep
productivity
in
that
mix,
because
if
you
get
it
to
where
somebody
can
come
in
and
just
pay
more
money
than
then
you
can
justify
as
a
ranching
operation,
it
kind
of
circumvents
what
we're
trying
to
do.
N
We're
trying
to
keep
this
in
productivity
and
keep
it
going,
and
I
do
believe
that's
the
concern
is
that
other
people
could
come
in
if
we
open
it
up
too
much
and
start
taking
these
state
lands
out
of
production
and
maybe
doing
other
things
with
it.
So
I'm
a
yes
vote
and
I
respect
my
colleague
that
has
concern,
but
I
don't,
I
think,
they're
warned
thank
you.
B
B
Got
paper
scattered
all
over,
I
think
we're
in
agreement
with
stock
growers
and
the
land
board.
I
Us
and
then
we'll
go
into
this,
mr
chairman,
I'll,
make
that
motion
that
we
accept
the
amendment
that
was
provided
all
right
and
I
think
it's
in
the
colored
one.
B
And
moved
by
larson,
second
and
by
wharf,
and
I
will
go
ahead
and
read
that
the
queen
clean
version
and
we're
on
rome
page
four
lines:
one
through
five:
it's
from
a
net
three
before
accepting
applications
to
least
vacant
land,
the
director
shall
provide
notice
on
the
website
of
the
office
directly
to
each
adjoining
private
landowner,
as
recorded
within
the
county
assessor's
office
and
by
any
other
means,
as
procrasti
prescribed
by
rule.
B
So
we
have
discussion
on
this
amendment
all
right.
We're
ready
to
vote
all
those
in
favor
say:
aye,
aye
opposed.
Okay,.
B
A
B
B
H
Chairman,
my
name
is
representative
evan
simpson,
I'm
here
representing
the
select
water
committee.
It's
a
pleasure
to
be
in
front
of
my
favorite
standing
committee,
you're
fortunate
to
serve
where
you
are
you've
got
such
a
variety
of
topics
and
fun
things
to
entertain,
appreciate,
representative
from
the
state
and
jurors
office.
Here
I
must
disclose
there
is
one
person
in
the
room
who
is
far
more
expert
than
I
am
that
should
be
presenting
this
bill,
and
that
is
representative
larson.
H
So
at
the
very
end,
if
there's
any
really
hard
questions,
these
two
gentlemen
will
be
able
to
answer
those
so
we'll
carry
on
with
that
now.
This
is
a
rather
large
bill,
but
I
think
we
can
dispense
of
it
fairly
quickly
because
I
know
that
you've
already
read
through
it
once
and
so
I'm
going
to
focus
on
the
highlights
of
what
this
bill
is
all
about.
H
So
members
of
the
committee,
when
a
developer
takes
a
piece
of
property,
wants
to
subdivide
it.
He
subdivides
it's
called
a
subdivision
in
the
county.
It's
called
an
addition.
If
it's
inside
of
a
municipality
there's
various
requirements
depending
on
whether
it's
inside
a
municipality
or
a
county,
but
the
bottom
line,
is
he
has
decisions
to
make
with
the
water
rights
on
that
piece
of
property.
So
it's
an
ag
property
and
when
he's
dividing
it,
he
can
do
one
of
four
or
five
options
and
the
challenge
is
in
the
past.
H
The
developers
quite
often
will
choose
one,
but
never
follow
through
with
it.
So
what's
happening
is
we're
having
some
very
valuable
water
rights
that
are
just
left
in
limbo
and
once
the
subdivision
is
completed
and
all
the
lot
owners
are
purchasing
the
lots
and
own
the
lots,
it's
really
almost
impossible
to
go
back
in
retrospect
and
try
to
clean
up
the
water
rights,
so
this
bill
does
that
once
and
for
all.
H
It
requires
the
developers
to
follow
all
the
way
through
with
they
have
the
option
of
what
to
do
with
the
water
rights,
but
they
have
to
finish
and
and
get
those
appropriated
appropriately
through
the
state
board
of
control
or
the
state
engineers
office.
So
let's
dig
into
it
I'd
like
to
direct
your
attention
to
page
two.
H
So
in
the
statutes
chapter
15
pertains
to
cities
and
towns.
That's
what
we're
talking
about
now:
cities
and
towns
they're
the
weakest
of
the
requirements,
so
we're
actually
writing
new
subsections
for
them.
So
in
you'll
see
on
line
six
with
respect
to
any
water
rights,
pertinent
to
lands
to
be
subdivided
or
in
accordance
with
this
section
and
prior
to
certification,
approval
of
the
map
or
plat.
H
H
That's
always
the
best
option,
because
subdivisions,
typically
in
cities
and
towns,
they're
going
to
start
they're
going
to
get
a
service
connection
tap
from
the
city
and
they'll
start
drinking
city
water,
and
they
probably
will
not
have
irrigation
pipes
to
to
water
the
lawns
with
they
usually
do
that
through
the
the
drinking
water
system.
So
this
option
covers
that.
H
So
if
they
transfer
their
rights
to
the
city
or
town,
then
they
can
then
transfer
them
to
their
intervening
head
gate
and
and
utilize
the
water
rights
in
within
the
cities
or
towns,
water
rights,
okay,
on
item
c
line,
nine
plan
accompanied
and
again
I
want
to
emphasize
that
first
sentence:
you'll
see
it
over
and
over
again
the
plan
accompanied
by
written
documentation
from
the
state
engineer
that
he
has
approved
the
plan.
Okay,
that's
what
we're
after
here
is
an
approved
plan.
H
Whatever
options
we
take,
we
have
an
approved
plan
before
the
subdivision
is
finally
approved
by
the
city
or
town
county.
So
this
one
says
on
line
12.
The
plan
shall
specify
the
distribution
of
the
water
to
the
lots,
so
some
developers
actually
run
a
secondary
irrigation
system
to
the
lots
so
that
those
lots
can
literally
use
irrigation
water
to
irrigate
with
that's
a
great
option.
We
love
that
and
now
we're
not
using
drinking
water
for
irrigating,
lawns
and
gardens
in
large
lots,
but
we
actually
have
ditch
water
that
we're
using
so
that's
an
option
there.
H
H
So
in
other
words,
if
a
owner
has
a
parcel
of
land
right
next
door,
that
is
not
irrigated
does
not
have
water
rights.
He
can
detach
the
water
rights
from
the
parcel
he's
developing
and
drop
it
over
on
to
the
next
current
lot
that
he
owns.
That
he's
going
to
detach
and
there's
many
other
scenarios
there,
but
as
an
option,
is
to
transfer
those
water
rights
to
a
different
parcel.
H
H
The
drawback
you're
going
to
hear
from
this
is
it's
going
to
slow
the
subdivision
process
down
if
the
developer
isn't
on
top
of
that
doing
that
water
rights
work
in
advance
and
he
procrastinates
and
gets
into
the
subdivision
process
it
takes
a
while
for
the
state
engineer's
office
and
the
board
of
control
to
work
through
these
things.
There's
always
red
lines
coming
back
to
the
engineers
and
surveyors
to
to
modify
things,
and
so
it's
going
to
slow
the
process
down.
You're
going
to
hear
that
as
the
biggest
complaint
of
the
bill
representative
larson.
I
Mr
chairman,
in
this
section
d,
is
there
are
there
times
when
they
detach
these
water
rights
and
let
them
kind
of
sit
there
in
limbo,
trying
to
find
a
home
for
them,
and
they
do.
Is
there
a
limit
of
time
for
that.
O
Mr
chairman,
representative
larson,
we
refer
to
that
as
the
adwr,
the
authorization
for
detachment
of
water
ice,
and
so
that
allows
for
these
lands
to
be
detached
into
a
mythical
bank
for
a
period
of
up
to
five
years,
so
it
allows
the
development
to
go
forward.
While
we
try
to
find
a
home
for
these
rights
if
there
is
no
change
in
place
of
use,
change
in
use
if
the
water
is
not
moved
or
otherwise
dealt
with,
it
will
be
abandoned
after
five
years.
O
K
I've
been
involved
in
some
water
rights
down
to
one
of
the
states
to
the
south
southwest
of
us,
whereby
some
ranchers
were
were
able
to
detach
the
water
rights
and
sell
those
water
rights
to
large
cities,
and
so
some
of
the
land
becomes
non-irrigated,
because
the
the
value
of
the
water
is
more
than
what
they
care
to
invest
into
irrigating
their
own
land
and
as
the
the
colorado
river
system
becomes
more
drought-stricken.
K
I
fear
that
that
could
be
something
that
may
happen
as
some
of
these
larger
cities.
You
know
down
the
colorado,
river
or
other
areas.
They
may
come
into
wyoming
and
say
here:
we
we
will
buy
your
water
rights
if
we
can
detach
it
and
force
us
to
flow
our
water
out
of
state.
Is
this
a
possibility
that
could
happen.
H
Chairman,
that's
a
different
subject
than
what
we're
on
right
now
but
be
aware.
H
As
the
colorado
river
continues
to
be
in
the
stroup
situation,
there
could
come
a
time
when
even
the
city
of
cheyenne
or
a
city
down
south
of
us
could
be
restricted
on
their
water,
to
the
point
that
they
can't
serve
water
to
the
residents
and
they
would
be
forced
to
purchase
water
from
an
agricultural
user
upstream
somewhere.
It's
definitely
part
of
the
system,
part
of
the
options,
but
the
key
there
is
that
they
can't
go
up
and
take
the
water
from
the
ranch
or
the
farmer.
H
K
Yeah,
go
ahead
represent
higher,
so
as
someone
comes
in
and
and
subdivides
the
land,
and
rather
than
keeping
that
water
on
the
land
to
the
various
subdivisions
or
giving
it
to
the
local
town
or
something
I
can.
Would
it
be
possible
for
this
subdivider
or
this
company.
The
subdividing
lands
to
see
a
revenue
source,
additional
revenue
source
to
buy
up
agricultural
land
and
subdivide
it
and
then
not
only
sell
the
land
but
separate
the
water
and
send
that
out
of
state.
O
Miss
thank
you,
mr
chairman
representative
heiner.
The
process
is
pretty
well
defined
in
wyoming
and,
first
of
all,
the
nature
of
water
rights
wyoming.
They
are
pertinent
to
that
land,
and
so
the
process
for
an
adjudicated
water
right
would
be
to
petition
the
board
of
control
under
the
change
in
use
or
change
in
place
abuse
statute.
O
So,
if
you're
taking
irrigated
lands,
you
could
change
the
beneficial
use
through
that
petition
through
a
dock
to
the
state
engineer
or
excuse
me,
the
border
control
shipping,
it
out
of
state,
of
course,
there's
an
export
statute,
you're
involving
water
compacts,
and
it's
probably
not
that
realistic.
P
Yeah,
mr
chairman,
if
I
may
just
add
to
the
question
so
if
water
right
is
abandoned,
it
goes
back
to
the
system
and
any
new
permit
on
that.
Somebody
would
have
to
come
in
and
file
a
new
permit
with
the
state
engineer
and
have
to
go
through
our
process
to
do
that.
So
your
question
about
selling
the
water-
I
I
don't
believe
that
if
it's
abandoned
voluntarily
or
involuntarily,
they
can't
just
sell
that
to
a
downstream
entity.
You'd
have
to
go
through
a
permitting
process.
Once
it's
abandoned.
B
It
is
being
done.
They
have
aerators
in
wyoming.
Are
selling
irrigation
water
across
state
lines
being
paid
for
it.
So
there's
a
process
that
it's
being
done
with
and
right
or
wrong,
go
ahead.
You
did
you
have
some
dad.
Okay,
all
right
represent
wharf.
N
O
Mr
chairman,
representative
wharf,
I
would
be
happy
to
address
that
the
state
engineer
and
the
wyoming
board
of
control
were
created
via
constitution.
The
board
of
control
members
are
made
up
of
the
four
water
division
superintendents
throughout
the
state,
as
well
as
the
state
engineer
serves
as
the
president
of
the
border
control.
L
No,
that's
fine,
your
method
where
you
move
or
in
the
build
a
method
where
you
move
from
the
subdivision
to
another
piece
of
land.
I
assume
it
has
to
go
through
the
rules
and
have
a
method
of
conveyance
and
or
is,
is
that
it's
probably
covered
under
some
other
rule.
Yes,
nowhere,
I'm
in
the
weeds.
O
I
B
H
Go
ahead,
mr
chairman,
I'm
on
page
four
roman
numeral,
two,
so
here's
so
the
concept
we
just
presented
is
one
concept.
Here's
a
second
concept,
that's
included
in
the
bill.
So
if
the
subdivision
is
located
within
lands
where
a
ditch
or
an
irrigation
structure
is
located,
so,
let's
just
say,
a
ditch
runs
through
they're
required
under
this
roman
numeral
ii
60
days
prior
to
submitting
of
the
plat,
they
have
to
submit
that
to
the
irrigation
company
or
the
owners
of
the
ditch
and
give
them
the
opportunity
to
reply
and
talk
about.
H
What's
recorded
on
the
plat,
obviously
they'll
be
looking
at
easements
how
they're
going
to
manage
the
ditch
with
the
subdivision
lane
on
top
of
it,
so
they
will
respond
in
writing
to
the
city
or
town
for
them
to
be
able
to
consider
the
ramifications.
H
Roman
numeral
three
evidence
that
the
owner
will
specifically
state
on
all
offers
and
solicitations
for
future
lot
owners
relative
to
the
subdivision.
The
owners
intend
to
comply
with
this
paragraph
and
the
owner
does
not
warrant
to
the
purchaser
that
the
purchaser
should
have
any
rights
of
natural
flow.
So
what
that
the
way
I
envisioned
this
happening
on
every
subdivision,
plath,
there's
called
plot
warnings,
so
they'll
just
put
a
paragraph
on
there.
H
That
says
by
the
way,
even
though
that
ditch
runs
through
your
property,
you
don't
have
any
water
rights,
because
sometimes
people
see
ditches
and
canals
and
they're
going
wow.
It's
in
my
lot
23
I
own
that
I
can
start
putting
a
ditch
a
pump
in
it,
sucking
it
out
and
start
using
the
water,
and
so
this
normal
numeral
three
simply
says.
There's
a
warning
that
says
you
don't
do
not
necessarily
have
any
water
rights,
page
five,
roman
numeral,
four
again.
H
If
the
subdivision
is
located
within
the
boundaries
of
an
irrigation
district,
then
the
irrigation
district
will
be
notified
and
and
they
have
the
option
of
of
including
to
the
city
and
town
issues
that
they
may
have,
that
might
conflict.
For
example,
there
might
be
a
structure
on
lot
23
that
they
have
to
gain
access
to
every
week
to
clean
off
the
screen
or
something
like
that,
and
they
need
to
be
able
to
have
the
opportunity
to
present
that
to
the
city
and
town
and
say
there's
a
problem
here.
H
H
H
Okay,
I'm
on
page
six,
now
here's
the
deal
chapter
18
of
the
statutes
is
all
about
counties,
not
cities.
So
we
have
to
reiterate
everything
we
just
went
through
so
I'll.
Let
you
glance
down
through
the
next
several
pages
they're,
just
reiterating
the
exact
same
thing,
only
we're
putting
it
in
a
different
statute
that
pertains
to
counties.
H
H
L
Just
mr
chairman,
just
one
question
in
the
version
where
the,
when
a
ditch
stays
in
the
subdivision,
is
there
a
provision
in
law
already
to
make
sure
there's
a
right
of
way?
I
assume
there
is
the
ditch
right
or
is
that
something
that
needs
to
be
covered
in
another
day,
not
in
this
building.
O
Mr
chairman,
representative
claussen,
I
am
unaware
of
any
provision
or
statute
that
addresses
that
many
of
our
conveyance
systems
work
under
prescriptive
easements.
That
they've
been
using
this
for
a
period
of
years,
and
they
have
some
legal
right
to
do
so,
but
it
seems,
at
least
in
my
purview,
somewhat
uncommon
when
there
is
an
actual
easement
on
many
of
these
ditches.
Now
the
bigger
irrigation
districts
may
have
more
formality,
but
it
is
not
set
in
stone.
I
Representative
larson,
mr
chairman,
and
I
think
that's
a
real
reason
for
this
out
in
the
county.
They
already
deal
with
it
in
the
irrigation
districts,
but
also
in
the
city.
We
definitely
want
to
make
sure
that,
if
there's
a
underground
drain
which
isn't
tied
to
water
essentially,
but
we
want
to
make
sure
that
the
irrigation
districts
have
a
chance
to
say:
hey,
we've
got
a
drain
right
here.
You
can't
dig
your
your
your
basement
here,
because
you're
going
to
run
into
some
problems,
so
they
can
identify
those
issues
and
place
them.
Okay,
represent.
B
H
F
H
H
I've
worked
with
some
municipalities
and
it's
a
big
job,
especially
where
the
subdivision
is
large
and
all
of
a
sudden
you're
dealing
with
15
20
30
40
land
owners,
and
you
have
to
have
their
approval
because
it
requires
a
change
of
use
from
ag
to
municipal
and
then
requires
a
change
of
point
of
diversion
to
the
head
gate
of
the
city,
and
so
you
have
to
have
every
law
owner's
approval
to
do
that.
So
it
makes
it
tougher.
I
Mr
chairman,
I'm
going
to
follow
up
on
the
questions
that
our
good
representative
has
has
just
been
asking.
I
guess
I
would
like
to
ask
the
border
control
is
there
is
there
times
when
there
is
a
an
area
in
a
city
that
has
already
been
subdivided,
and
maybe
they're
gonna
do
another
subdivision
inside
that,
where
they
have
water
rights
that
are
hanging
there
and
nothing
has
been
done
with
them.
O
Mr
chairman,
representative
larson,
as
we
see
with
the
bill
in
front
of
us,
there's
the
attempt
to
create
a
new
statute
affecting
these
water
rights,
where
there
is
none
currently
within
municipalities
and
towns.
O
In
my
experience
and
when
I
gained
my
position,
I
realized
this
problem
was
occurring
in
sheridan
through
forging
a
partnership
while
not
required
the
city
assured
and
has
allowed
my
staff
and
I
to
comment
on
new
developments
coming
up,
and
so,
while
we
don't
have
any
real
teeth
at
the
time
we
comment
on
these,
and-
and
I
don't
want
it
to
be
burdensome
where
someone
is
coming
in
front
of
that
planning
commission
to
do
a
simple
redevelopment
or
lot
split,
and
now
they
have
to
seek
consent
from
hundreds
of
people
that
are
under
a
blanket
territorial
water.
O
F
Thank
you,
mr
chairman
representative
simpson,
and
forgive
my
ignorance,
but
I
thought
when
you
bought
land,
that
water
right
follows
it
through
the
title
process
I
mean.
Obviously,
if
there's
some
kind
of
encumbrance
or
defect,
that's
one
thing,
but
I
guess
that's.
I
just
thought
that
this
would
have
been
solved
or
been
largely
dealt
with
because
those
those
rights
follow
that
land.
If
I
sell
half
this,
you
get
the
half
the
water
rights
that
that
came
with
this
land.
When
I
bought
it
kind
of
thing.
H
I'm
going
to
start,
and
let
you
finish
if
you
buy
a
large
piece
of
land.
That's
always
the
case
comes
with
with
the
lands
attached
to
the
water
right.
However,
if
you're
a
lot
owner
and
the
ditch
or
pipeline
is
hundreds
of
yards
away
and
you
buy
the
land
the
lot,
you
have
no
means
of
conveyance,
so
all
of
a
sudden
you're
sitting
there
there
could
be
water
in
the
ditch
or
pipe,
but
you
have
no
access
to
it.
So
the
water
right
itself
becomes
just
hanging
out
there,
because
no
one
can
use
the
water.
O
Mr
chairman,
representative,
western
many
of
our
towns
and
cities
are
underlain
by
some
of
the
oldest
water
rights
in
wyoming,
and
they
have
a
very
broad
description
of
that
water
right
and
it
may
have
been
the
john
d
lauck's
appropriation
for
several
hundred
acres
now
through
development
over
time
now
we
have
many
dozens,
hundreds,
even
thousands,
of
owners
of
these
water
rights
to
do
any
change
to
that
water
right.
You
must
seek
consent
from
everyone
in
that
blanket
description,
water
rights
to
further
address
your
question.
O
F
O
Mr
chairman,
representative
western,
I
have
a
a
petition
on
the
docket
right
now
in
division.
Two,
where
someone
on
the
western
end
of
sheridan
is
attempting
to
change
the
point
of
diversion
of
a
territorial
1882
water
right
to
a
pump
in
big
goose
creek.
At
last
count
they
had
gathered
682
deeds
and
must
seek
consent
from
all
of
those
people
because,
as
those
lands
were
annexed
and
subdivided,
this
was
not
a
process.
B
Yeah,
so
if
we're
on
page
three
c
helps
to
address
some
of
what
you're
talking
about
as
far
as
going
forward,
I
I
do
know
what
what
representative
western
is
talking
about
has
created
problems
in
in
part,
because
we
don't
have
this
legislation
in
place.
We
have
a
case
in
lander
and
some
of
us
might
remember
the
legislation.
I
don't
think
it
made
it
from
the
senate
to
the
house,
but
when
they
finished
up
there
was
just
no
way
to
statutorily
clean
up
the
water
rights
that
were
being
conveyed
throughout
the
city
of
landers.
B
So
I
I
don't
think
it's
cleaned
up,
yet
I
I
know
of
one
city
that
has
water
running
through
it
and
people
water
their
yards
with
it,
they've
maintained
a
water
right,
beneficial
use
for
their
their
yards
and
whatnot
and
works
fine.
As
far
as
I
know,
this
is
to
hopefully
get
things
in
order
before
we
before
we
have
a
development
and
problems
arise
with
water
rights.
Go
ahead,
represent
dwarf.
N
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
had
a
question
and
it's
just
things.
I've
heard
I
know
that
there
was
a
a
subdivision
here
in
this
county,
where
once
it
was
developed,
the
runoff
that
that
resulted
from
that
created
problems
elsewhere,
and
I
know
on
page
five-
it's
identified
starts
on
16
talks
about
the
significant
edition
burden
or
risk.
N
N
It
seems
like
to
me
I
I
know
nobody's
got
a
crystal
ball
and
in
the
event
that
there
is
something
that
happens,
that
that
was
not
forecast
or
not
clearly
understood.
Where
does
that
liability
fall?
If
the
developer
had
an
approved
plan
and
a
situation
arose
where
there
was
runoff
water
that
that
created
damage
somewhere
else,
who's
who's
then
liable
for
that
representing.
B
N
Dealing
with
irrigation
water
going
through
a
subdivision,
okay,
because
the
next
question
I
was
going
to
ask
is:
how
does
that
affect
somebody?
That's
got
a
barrel
out
there
collecting
rainwater
because
yeah,
so
that
helps
me
understand
so
we're
just
talking
about
if
I've
got
an
irrigation
system
crossing
that
property,
I
can't
shut
that
down
and
say
sorry
that
helps
me
understand
a
lot
better.
Thank
you
because
I
I
wanted
to
make
sure
that
we
were
covering
all
that
risk,
but
that
all
right.
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
N
B
R
Thank
you,
mr
chairman
keith
kennedy
on
behalf
of
wyoming
crop
improvement
association,
and
we
fully
support
this
bill.
The
one
question
that
I
would
have
regarding
some
of
the
language
that
is
in
here-
and
it
was
actually
just
touched
on
on
page
six
line,
two
page
four
line:
twelve
and
page
11
line.
Four,
our
ask
would
be
whether
they're.
B
That
why
don't
we
do
it
right
now
and
forward.
So
we
don't
forget
anything.
P
Mr
chairman
I'll
attempt
it,
but
then
I'll
let
dave
offer
anything
to,
but
I
think
what
that
scenario
describes
is
more
of
a
civil
issue
and
not
a
water
right
issue,
and
I
don't
know
that
the
bill
is
trying
to
address
that
or
not,
but
the
the
ditch,
the
conveyance
through
a
property
we're
dealing
with
water
rights.
P
R
My
concern
is
and
you'll
see
the
language
in
there
that
they
made
a
good
faith
effort
to
reduce
or
mitigate
risk,
and
that
was
the
basis
of
my
question
which
certainly
to
the
whoever
operates
the
conveyance,
whether
it's
an
irrigation
district
or
as
named
in
the
bill.
If
I
were
on
that
board,
that
would
certainly
be
one
of
my
comments
back
to
the
subdivider
is
when
we
develop
this
plan.
R
R
B
B
The
question
I'd
ask
state
engineers:
that's
how
do
your
purview
that
has
to
be
addressed
in
the
by
the
planning,
commission
or
the
county
or
whoever's.
R
B
J
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
for
the
record
david
fraser
executive
director
of
wyoming
association
of
municipalities.
I
want
to
commend
you
and
commend
the
select
water
committee
for
taking
up
this
issue.
This
is
an
important.
J
I
don't
need
to
impress
upon
you
how
important
this
issue
is
we're
dealing
with
a
finite
resource
and
and
which
seems
to
be
coming
more
finite,
as
has
been
discussed
here.
So
we
appreciate
the
effort
to
capture
those
rights
before
they're
orphaned.
I
do
appreciate
and
will
mention
that
we've
had
the
opportunity.
The
select
water
committee
did
include
us
in
their
conversation
and
allow
for
our
comments,
and
we
appreciate
them
doing
that
and
paying
attention
to
what
obviously
paying
attention
to
what
our
comments
were.
J
So
appreciate
that
I
just
today
have
just
one,
I
guess,
clarifying
question
to
make
sure
my
assumptions
are
correct,
and
that
is
you
know
it's
not
an
uncommon
practice
for
city
planning
and
zoning
codes
to
recognize
that
once
the
subject
you
know
once
the
subdivision
is
completed,
that
the
city
will
then
be
serving
the
subdivision
with
water
and
in
recognition
of
that
you
know,
some
of
the
codes
indicate
that,
as
a
condition
of
approval,
the
developer
will
be
required
to
transfer
water
rights
to
the
city,
essentially
option
b
of
the
four
options
here,
and
I
guess
I
just
want
to
clarify,
because
I
I
don't
believe
there's
anything
in
here
that
restricts
the
the
city
when
they
approve
a
subdivision
from
requiring
for
making
the
requirement
that
they
take
the
developer,
take
option
b.
B
I
think
so
I
I
think
I
could
answer
it
there
are.
There
are
other
options
here.
This
is
a
really
good
option
to
transfer
to
the
city.
If
I
understood
the
bringer
the
amendment
and
the
and
the
or
the
bringer
of
the
bill,
we
we
would
have
other
options
that
would
be
on
the
table.
It
wouldn't
necessarily
be
transferred
to
the
city
or
town.
It
sometimes
can't
be
unless
it's
a
water
right.
J
On
that
particular
well,
that's
what
I'm
referring
to
is
the
existing
water
rights
on
the
land.
That's
going
to
become
the
subdivision,
it's
not
an
uncommon
practice
in
city
planning
to
say
well
we're
going
to
need
additional
water
rights
when
we
have
this
new
subdivision,
so
easiest
way
to
get
the
additional
water
rights
is
from
the
person.
That's
asking
us
to
do
the
subdivision,
so
that's
kind
of
usually
a
first
step.
J
I
recognize
in
here
that
they're,
given
all
that
that
all
four
options
exist
and
my
question,
which
may
be
a
question
for
legal,
would
be.
I
don't
believe-
and
I
want
to
make
sure.
I
don't
believe
that
this
would
stop
a
city
from
saying
well
as
a
condition
of
us
agreeing
to
take
on
service
of
this
new
subdivision,
we're
going
to
ask
you
to
take
option
b.
B
I
J
Again
in
city
planning,
it's
you
know,
we've
recognized
this.
We
the
profession,
have
recognized.
You
know
the
need
not
to
abandon
one
orphan
excuse
me
abandon
the
different
things
not
to
orphan
water
rights
and
that's
why
that's
kind
of
a
fairly
common
practice
so
again
I'll
have
I'll
have
unless
some.
I
guess.
I
just
put
on
record
that
it's
my
understanding
that
this
wouldn't
you
know,
do
anything
to
preclude
us
from
continuing
that
practice
in
the
future
and
as
I
have
my
legal
folks
look
at
it.
K
B
B
If
yeah,
if
we
vote
on
this
and
vote
the
bill
through
and
you're
you're,
you
find
some
legal
basis
to
fix
something.
We
can
bring
amendments
to
the
fore.
We
do
it
all
the
time
yeah
and.
J
Again,
mr
chairman,
I
don't
I
don't
see
a
problem
here.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that,
before
we're
finished
that
we,
you
know
what
I
mean
that
we're
comfortable
with
that.
We
do
think
this
is
a
fantastic
bill
again
applaud
the
efforts
of
the
select
water
committee
and
of
and
of
the
legislature
to
address
this.
Thank
you.
I'd
take
any
questions,
questions.
B
Q
Good
morning,
mr
chairman,
members
of
the
committee
bill,
novotny,
I'm
not
here
on
behalf
of
the
wyoming
county
commissioners
association
they've,
actually
taken
a
monitor
position
on
this.
I'm
here
is
actually
a
johnson
county
commissioner,
looking
out
for
the
municipalities
within
my
county,
and
I
fully
support
this
bill
and
encourage
you
to
move
it
forward.
Q
When
you
look
at
the
city
of
buffalo,
they
are
actually
a
city
that
has
stranded
water
rights
and,
for
whatever
reason,
either
their
city
planner
or
their
public
works.
Director
has
not
taken
the
time
to
do
the
legwork
to
get
those
rights
transferred.
Why
that's
important
is
because
the
clear
creek
watershed
is
over
adjudicated
and
actually
the
city
of
buffalo
does
not
even
have
the
senior
water
rights
on
clear
creek.
Q
When
I
look
at
the
town
of
kc,
who
has
a
staff
of
two
as
they
experience
growth
and
there
are
areas
with
water
rights
around
the
city
of
casey,
they
really
don't
have
the
sophistication
to
handle
that
process.
So
I
like
that,
the
process
that
currently
is
in
place
for
counties
is
essentially
cut
and
pasted
out
of
our
statute
and
taken
into
the
municipal
section
in
statutes,
and
so
I
would
encourage
you
to
move
this
forward.
Q
I
think
this
is
going
to
help
prevent
a
lot
of
future
problems
as
we
deal
with
water
issues
across
the
state
of
wyoming,
and
what
I
also
like
is
that
really
there
are
some
options
in
there,
and
so,
as
the
city
of
buffalo
or
the
town
of
casey
is
contemplating
annexation
and
water
rights
are
involved,
they
can
use
their
subdivision
agreements
and
their
annexation
agreements
to
handle
those
unique
situations
where
there
is
water
rights
attached
to
the
property
that
they
may
be,
bringing
in
to
their
city
limits.
Q
I
Question
yeah,
mr
chairman,
I
don't
have.
I
don't
really
have
a
question.
I
just
appreciate
him
coming
forward
and
and
stating
that
they're
in
agreement
that
we
need
to
push
this
forward.
Okay,.
B
B
Move
by
claussen,
second,
second,
by
larson
committee:
do
you
see
any
changes
that
you
want
to
make
to
this
bill?
Any
discussion
on
it
question
being
called
for
a
roll
call.
Please.
B
B
So
before
we
start
this,
it's
been
my
pleasure
most
of
the
time
to
be
able
to
work
with
our
water
development
commission
on
what
is
a.
This
is
a
planning
bill
and
there's
a
construction
bill
and
and
it's
a
long
process-
and
it's
been
really
interesting
to
see
how
the
state
of
wyoming
develops
water
and
I've
appreciated
the
way
this
office
works,
and
we
have
the
chairman
of
the
select
water
committee
as
well
as
actually
the
director
of
of
this
of
the
state
engine
or
the
state
engineer.
B
H
Mr
chairman,
evan
simpson,
representative
folks,
you've
you've
seen
the
omnibus
bill
every
single
year
and
this
is
formatted
exactly
the
same.
The
blue
sheet
in
your
binder,
that's
in
your
cover,
summarizes
the
projects.
H
H
B
K
S
Mr
chairman,
that
is
in
the
construction
bill
this
particular.
So
this
is
the
planning
bill.
Obviously-
and
this
is
a
study
to-
I
guess-
confirm
in
the
sierra
nevadas
and
I'm
sorry-
sierra
madres
and
the
medicine
bow
range
where
we
do
aerial
cloud
seating
and
we've
been
doing
that
in
an
active
fashion
for
the
past
four
years
to
confirm
what
we
originally
thought
were.
The
numbers
on
additional
stream
flow
that
results
from
that
cloud
seeding.
S
K
B
G
Representative
fortner,
thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
see
on
the
fiscal
note
back
here
that
looks
like
all
the
money's
coming
out
of
one
water
account
going
into
another
on
the
water
development
going
back
into
the
water
of
commission.
G
S
For
the
water
development
programs
through
comes
through
the
mineral
severance
tax
distribution
and
the
funding
that
so
we
have
three
accounts
account.
One
is
water
new
development,
new
development
of
water
account,
two
is
rehabilitation
of
projects
that
are
15
years
or
older,
and
then
account
three
is
our
dam
and
reservoir
program
and
each
one
of
those
accounts
get
a
certain
percentage
of
the
mineral
seven's
tax
that
is
currently
capped
at
155
million,
and
then
that's
what
funds
our
program,
each
biennium.
G
Yes,
sir,
go
ahead,
so
we're
basically
just
talking
about
about
money,
that's
already
or
minerals.
That's
already
been
taxed,
so
this
is
already
coming
out
of
a
tax
program.
So
there's
nothing,
no
new
taxes,
that's
what
I
needed
to
know.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
That's
correct
and
we're
just
now
appropriating.
B
B
B
Question
being
called
so
be
a
roll
call,
we're
missing
one
of
our
people.
He
did
okay
and
I'll.
Keep
that
over
I'll.
Just
keep
the
row
open
when
he
gets
back,
because
I
kind
of
know
he
will
he'll
want
to
be
voting
on
it.
Okay,
go
ahead,
carol.