Laserfiche WebLink
<br />,1 <br /> <br />PARSHALL PROJECT, COLORADO <br /> <br />1. The right of Denver to divert water from the Blue River and pro- <br />vide replacement storage in the Williams Fork Reservoir has a priority <br />of October 5, 1955, the date of the stipulation, and thus it is junior <br />to the Parshall project right for the potential Ute Park Reservoir which <br />has a priority of September 8, 1954. <br /> <br />2. The Denver power right on Williams Fork River has a priority of <br />December 31, 1955, which is subsequent to the project right for the Ute <br />Park Reservoir. <br /> <br />3. Denver has not obtained approval of the Secretary of the Interior <br />or ParShall project sponsors of its plan to provide replacement storage <br />in Williams Fork Reservoir as required by the stipulation. <br /> <br />4. Denver's only right in the Williams Fork Reservoir which is <br />senior to the Parshall project right in the Ute Park Reservoir is its <br />right to store replacement water for Williams Fork River diversions. <br />Replacement ,vater for Fraser River diversions could also be stored in <br />the Williams Fork Reservoir, however, without appreciable interference <br />with the Parshall project so that rights for such storage may be consid- <br />ered as senior to Ute Park Reservoir rights. <br /> <br />It is understood that the city and county of Denver will protest <br />against making absolute the conditional right of the Big Lake Ditch <br />Company for 159 second-feet of water from Williams Fork River. <br /> <br />The water right questions are pending before the District Court in <br />and for the county of Grand. State of Colorado. in Civil Action No. 657 <br />entitled "In the Matter of Adjudication of Priorities of Rights for the <br />Use of \>later for Irrigation Purposes in .Tater District No. 51, in the <br />State of Colorado." Upon the outcome of the adjudication will depend <br />the amount of \>lilliams Fork River water available for development by the <br />Parshall project. <br /> <br />Purpose and scope of report <br /> <br />A firm plan for the Parshall project cannot be formulated until the <br />water right ,!uestions are determined. This status report has thus been <br />prepared on the basis of presently available data. The report presents <br />two project plans--Plan I based on a future water right adjudication <br />favorable to the project sponsors and Plan II on a ruling adverse to them. <br />The two plans involve essentially the same project works but capacities <br />of some features and scales of irrigation development are larger in Plan <br />I than in Plan II. Either plan would require some replacement storage <br />in order to release water to prior downstream rights during low flO\v <br />periodS when the Parshall project is storing or otherwise diverting water <br />from Williams Fork River. The report does not attempt to establish the <br />site of replacement storage. <br /> <br />4 <br />