My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP10070
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
10001-10999
>
WSP10070
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 2:57:09 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 4:06:07 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8220.102
Description
CRSP - Aspinall
State
CO
Basin
Gunnison
Water Division
1
Date
8/12/1994
Author
Unknown
Title
Questions and Answers Regarding Aspinall and Taylor Park Reservoirs
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
2
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />tROM:RES. RIGHTS <br /> <br />TO:CWCB <br /> <br />O1l2u7f1 <br /> <br />AUG 12. 1994 1:09PM ~4?9 P.03 <br /> <br />during the lengthy Union Park litigation. The applicants <br />failed to carry their burden of proof on this issue, rely- <br />ing on hydrologic modelling which the water court found was <br />not credible. And as explained above, releases fronl <br />Aspinall serve multiple purposes that benefit Colorado. <br /> <br />Question: Didn't state officials fail to protect important com- <br />pact inferests during the Union Park litigation? <br /> <br />RespO!!,se: In their bri ef to the Colorado Supreme Court, <br />the Stale Engineer and the Colorado Water Conservation <br />Board carefully pointed out several incorrect legal deter- <br />minations which the waler court made concerning the Law of <br />the River. The brief was reviewed by the staff of the <br />Opper Colorado River Commission and Colorado's Upper Colo- <br />rado Commissioner to ensure that it adequately addressed <br />those issues. The State Engineer and CWCS did not ask for <br />reversal of the water court decision because the water <br />court's errors concerning the Law of the River were not <br />dispositive in the outcome of the case. <br /> <br />Question: Why didn't state officials prevent the Upper Gunnison <br />Water Conservancy District from transferring the Taylor Park sec- <br />ond fill decree for fish and recreation releases to the federal <br />government? Won't the agreement prevent development of Colora- <br />do's compact apportIonment? <br /> <br />!esponse: First, the decree was not erroneously entered. <br />It was fully litigated, appealed, and affirmed by the Colo- <br />rado Supreme Court. One of the aspects of a decreed water <br />right is transferability -- state officials may not dictate <br />to the owner of a water right to whom he may sell or trans- <br />fer his righl. Although the Taylor Park second fill decree <br />decreases the yield that could be developed above the Res- <br />ervoir for transmountain diversions, it will not prevent <br />Colorado from developing its compact apportionment. Water <br />remains available for use in other locations. In addition, <br />water released from reservoirs for fish and recreation pro- <br />duces economic benefits for Colorado. <br /> <br />AG File No. E94l3123.113 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.