Crafts v. Hansen

I dissent because I believe the majority opinion answers the wrong question and *1082unwittingly reverses a long-standing and important rule governing the function of the state engineer in approving change applications.

In effect, the majority defines the central issue as whether the expert’s affidavits raise any “genuine issue of material fact” as to whether the proposed changes can be made without impairing vested water rights? If that were the issue, I would concur, since the majority opinion conclusively demonstrates that there are issues of fact on that question.

But this is not a case where…