Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />depletion are aile-wed between Blue Mesa Dam and Morrow Point Dam, and between Morrow <br />Point Dam and Crystal Dam. <br /> <br />Because of the small nature of most of the junior water rights, this policy has usually been <br />carried out by R"clamation's practice of simply not placing a "call" on the river when it might <br />otherwise have been entitled to do so, thus allowing junior in-basin users to continue using water. <br /> <br />Puroose. Need and Authoritv <br /> <br />A written agreement is needed to formalize the long-standing commitment implementing the <br />depletion allowance that was made by the United States prior to construction of the Unit. <br />Purposes of the Agreement include providing a method of accounting for depletions in the <br />natural basin of the Gunnison River and protecting Aspinall Unit water rights and purposes. This <br />final environmental assessment (EA) is prepared in compliance with the National Environmental <br />Policy Act (NEP A) of 1969 and related Department of the Interior policies and regulations. <br /> <br />The proposed Agreement is authorized pursuant to the Reclamation Act of 1902 (32 Stat. 388) <br />and all amendatory and supplemental acts, especially the Colorado River Storage Project Act (70 <br />Stat. 105), which authorized the Aspinall Unit. In related litigation, the United States took the <br />position, which the Colorado State Water Court accepted, that Aspinall Unit water rights were <br />intended to be subordinated to certain natural basin users up to specific amounts. In the Matter <br />of the Application for Water Rights of the Board of Co un tv Commissioners of the County of <br />Arapaho. in Gunnison County (Case No. 88-CW-178) the United States position prevailed that <br />Congress, based on legislative history (including the Economic Justification Report of 1959 on <br />the Aspinall Unit and its supplement, which were presented to Congress, in order to gain a <br />concession from upstream water users in return for their support of the Aspinall Unit) anticipated <br />depletions of up to 60,000 acre-feet above the Aspinall Unit.2 <br /> <br />Specifically, the Court concluded there was an understanding, in principle, among Reclamation, <br />the Colorado River Water Conservation District (CRWCD), and the Upper Gunnison River <br />Water Conservancy District (District) that Reclamation would allow depletions of 60,000 acre- <br />feet for use with:in the Gunnison River Basin. Though there is no formal written contract <br />existing among the parties, there is extensive evidence that the parties had the same intent (a <br />meeting of the minds) that Reclamation would subordinate (or allow depletions of) its senior <br />water rights in an amount up to 60,000 acre-feet for the benefit of in-basin development and use <br />of water by junior appropriators in the Gunnison Basin. The Court further concluded that the <br />conduct and understandings of the parties resulted in a contract, implied ifnot expressed, and the <br /> <br />2Brown, Robert A., Water Judge, Findings of Fact. Conclusions of Law. and Judgment & <br />Decree, Applica1:ion for Water Rights by the Board of County Commissioners for Arapahoe <br />County for the Union Park Reservoir Project, District Court, Water Division No.4, Colorado, <br />Case No. 88-CW-178, April 6, 1998. <br /> <br />3 <br />