Laserfiche WebLink
<br />002516 <br /> <br />boundaries of the state. <br /> <br />See ~ 37-61-101, article III (a); <br /> <br />Interior Solicitor's Opinion, M_ 28389 (Apr. 4, 1936). <br /> <br />Counsel for the State of Colorado stated to this court <br /> <br />during oral argument: <br /> <br />The marketable yield pool is water that is currently <br />being used for hydropower. In the future, they can <br />sell it off and use it for other purposes. It could <br />be diverted over the hill. It could be diverted <br />upstream and it wouldn't affect the economic <br />feasibility of the unit. <br /> <br />. <br />This characterization of the marketable pool 1n no wa~ <br /> <br />defeats the intent of the Compacts. <br /> <br />First, the storage and <br /> <br />release of water from the Aspinall Unit for Compact delivery <br /> <br />purposes aids Colorado 1n meeting its Compact obligations, <br /> <br />thereby benefiting the state's water users. <br /> <br />Second, the <br /> <br />comrnitment of the United States to mak.e the marketable pool <br /> <br />available for uses within Colorado will serve the CRSPA purpose <br /> <br />of aiding the state's use of its Compact apportionment. <br /> <br />Third, <br /> <br />by enforcing the Aspinall absolute decrees as we would any other <br /> <br />absolute decree, we clarify that the water rights of the United <br /> <br />States carry the same benefits and responsibilities as all other <br /> <br />decreed water rights. <br /> <br />See Simpson v. Highland Irrigation Co., <br /> <br />917 P.2d 1242, 1252 (Colo. 1996). <br /> <br />Cities are able to project their reasonable future water <br /> <br />needs and secure those uses through judicial decrees. <br /> <br />See City <br /> <br />of Thornton v. Bijou Irrigation Co., 926 P.2d 1, 40-41 (Colo. <br /> <br />43 <br />